MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399027865 · doi:10.1097/dcc.0000000000000643

Clinician Prediction of Survival vs Calculated Prediction Scores in Patients Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

2024· article· en· W4399027865 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Ann Martin, Genesis R. Bojorquez, Cassia Yi, Alex Ignatyev, Travis Pollema, Judy E. Davidson, Mazen Odish

Bibliographic record

VenueDimensions of Critical Care Nursing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationOxygenationMedicineExtracorporealInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Determining appropriate extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) candidacy ensures appropriate utilization of this costly resource. The current ECMO survival prediction scores do not consider clinician assessment of patient viability. This study compared clinician prediction of survival to hospital discharge versus prediction scores. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare clinician prediction of patients' survival to hospital discharge versus prognostic prediction scores (Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction [RESP] or Survival After Veno-Arterial ECMO [SAVE] score) to actual survival. METHODS: This was an observational descriptive study from January 2020 to November 2021 conducted with interviews of nurses, perfusionists, and physicians who were involved during the initiation of ECMO within the first 24 hours of cannulation. Data were retrieved from the medical record to determine prediction scores and survival outcomes at hospital discharge. Accuracy of clinician prediction of survival was compared to the RESP or SAVE prediction scores and actual survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: Accurate prediction of survival to hospital discharge for veno-venous ECMO by nurses was 47%, 64% by perfusionists, 45% by physicians, and 45% by the RESP score. Accurate predictions of patients on veno-arterial ECMO were correct in 54% of nurses, 77% of physicians, and 14% by the SAVE score. Physicians were more accurate than the SAVE score, P = .021, and perfusionists were significantly more accurate than the RESP score, P = .044. There was no relationship between ECMO specialists' years of experience and accuracy of predications. CONCLUSION: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation clinicians may have better predictions of survival to hospital discharge than the prediction scores. Further research is needed to develop accurate prediction tools to help determine ECMO eligibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDimensions of Critical Care NursingSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207