Length of Stay Analysis of COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit Admissions Using Count Regression and Hurdle Regression Models: A Study in a Tertiary Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the variables influencing the length of stay (LoS) for COVID-19 ICU patients at Tygerberg Hospital (Cape Town) and to identify the covariates that significantly influenced it and any potential risk factors associated with LoS. Methods and Results: Poisson, negative binomial (NB), Hurdle–Poisson, and Hurdle–NB regression models were used to model the LoS in this prospective cohort study. The fitted models were compared using the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Vuong’s test criteria, and Rootograms. Based on the chosen performance criteria, the NB model provided the best fit outperforming other candidate models. The baseline LoS count was 8 days. On average, antibiotics reduced LoS by 0.74-fold (95% CI 0.62-0.89) compared to not taking antibiotics. The second wave had a significant effect on the average LoS, which decreased by 0.36-fold (95% CI 0.14-0.93) compared to the first wave. Average LoS increased by 1.01-fold (95% CI 1.01-1.02) for every one-year increase in the age of the patient and by 1.02-fold (95% CI 1.01-1.03) for every 1 unit increase in neutrophils. A 1 ng/L increase in log (TropT) levels decreased the average LoS by 0.87-fold (95% CI 0.81-0.93) similarly, a unit increase in the PF ratio decreased the average LoS by 0.998-fold (95% CI 0.997-0.999) respectively. Conclusion: The study identified common clinical characteristics associated with length of stay in ICU for COVID-19 patients, including age at admission, PF ratio, neutrophils, TropT, Wave, and antibiotic use. These results can aid in identifying risk factors for increased length of stay, assist in healthcare systems planning, and aid in evaluating different models for analysing this type of data.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".