Validation of a risk-prediction model for pediatric post-discharge mortality after hospital admission in Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mortality following hospital discharge remains a significant threat to child health, particularly in resource-limited settings. In Uganda, the Smart Discharges risk-prediction models have successfully predicted children at the highest risk of death after hospital admission for sepsis to guide a risk-based approach to post-discharge care. We externally validated five models derived from Smart Discharges Uganda in a new cohort of children ages 0 days to 60 months admitted for suspected sepsis at two hospitals in Rwanda. Of 1218 total children (n=413, Kigali; n=805, Ruhengeri), 1161 lived to discharge (95.3%) and 1123 of those completed 6-month follow-up (96.7%). The overall rate of post-discharge mortality was 4.8% (n=58). All five prediction models tested achieved an area under the receiver-operating curve (AUROC) greater than 0.7 (range 0.706 - 0.738). Low outcome rates resulted in moderately wide confidence intervals. Model degradation ranged from 1.1% to 7.7%, as determined by the percent reduction in AUROC between the internal validation of the original Ugandan cohort and the external Rwandan cohort. Calibration plots showed good calibration for all models at predicted probabilities below 10%. There were too few outcomes to assess calibration among those at the highest predicted risk levels. Discrimination was good with minimal degradation of the model despite low outcome rates. Future work to assess model calibration among the highest risk groups is required to ensure models are broadly generalizable to all children with suspected sepsis in Rwanda and in similar, resource-limited settings.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".