Optimized Risk Score to Predict Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Mortality prediction in critically ill patients with cardiogenic shock can guide triage and selection of potentially high‐risk treatment options. Methods and Results We developed and externally validated a checklist risk score to predict in‐hospital mortality among adults admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit with Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions Shock Stage C or greater cardiogenic shock using 2 real‐world data sets and Risk‐Calibrated Super‐sparse Linear Integer Modeling (RiskSLIM). We compared this model to those developed using conventional penalized logistic regression and published cardiogenic shock and intensive care unit mortality prediction models. There were 8815 patients in our training cohort (in‐hospital mortality 13.4%) and 2237 patients in our validation cohort (in‐hospital mortality 22.8%), and there were 39 candidate predictor variables. The final risk score (termed BOS,MA 2 ) included maximum blood urea nitrogen ≥25 mg/dL, minimum oxygen saturation <88%, minimum systolic blood pressure <80 mm Hg, use of mechanical ventilation, age ≥60 years, and maximum anion gap ≥14 mmol/L, based on values recorded during the first 24 hours of intensive care unit stay. Predicted in‐hospital mortality ranged from 0.5% for a score of 0 to 70.2% for a score of 6. The area under the receiver operating curve was 0.83 (0.82–0.84) in training and 0.76 (0.73–0.78) in validation, and the expected calibration error was 0.9% in training and 2.6% in validation. Conclusions Developed using a novel machine learning method and the largest cardiogenic shock cohorts among published models, BOS,MA 2 is a simple, clinically interpretable risk score that has improved performance compared with existing cardiogenic‐shock risk scores and better calibration than general intensive care unit risk scores.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".