MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404552972 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083280

Accuracy of the Canadian COVID-19 Mortality Score (CCMS) to predict in-hospital mortality among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients infected with Omicron: a cohort study

2024· article· en· W4404552972 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Corinne M. Hohl, David Seonguk Yeom, Justin W. Yan, Patrick Archambault, Steven C. Brooks, Laurie J. Morrison, Jeffrey J. Perry, Rhonda J. Rosychuk

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of OttawaUniversité LavalOttawa HospitalHealth Sciences CentreCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesQueen's UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaSunnybrook Health Science CentreLawson Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersBiotalent CanadaMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesPublic Health Agency of CanadaFondation CHU de QuébecGenome British ColumbiaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSaskatchewan Health Research FoundationPublic Health Agency
KeywordsMedicineCohortEmergency departmentVaccinationEmergency medicineCohort studyPneumoniaInternal medicinePediatricsImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The objective is to externally validate and assess the opportunity to update the Canadian COVID-19 Mortality Score (CCMS) to predict in-hospital mortality among consecutive non-palliative COVID-19 patients infected with Omicron subvariants at a time when vaccinations were widespread. Design This observational study validated the CCMS in an external cohort at a time when Omicron variants were dominant. We assessed the potential to update the rule and improve its performance by recalibrating and adding vaccination status in a subset of patients from provinces with access to vaccination data and created the adjusted CCMS (CCMS adj ). We followed discharged patients for 30 days after their index emergency department visit or for their entire hospital stay if admitted. Setting External validation cohort for CCMS: 36 hospitals participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN). Update cohort for CCMS adj : 14 hospitals in CCEDRRN in provinces with vaccination data. Participants Consecutive non-palliative COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments. Main outcome measures In-hospital mortality. Results Of 39 682 eligible patients, 1654 (4.2%) patients died. The CCMS included age, sex, residence type, arrival mode, chest pain, severe liver disease, respiratory rate and level of respiratory support and predicted in-hospital mortality with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.88 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.88) in external validation. Updating the rule by recalibrating and adding vaccination status to create the CCMS adj changed the weights for age, respiratory status and homelessness, but only marginally improved its performance, while vaccination status did not. The CCMS adj had an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.92) in validation. CCMS adj scores of <10 categorised patients as low risk with an in-hospital mortality of <1.6%. A score>15 had observed mortality of >56.8%. Conclusions The CCMS remained highly accurate in predicting mortality from Omicron and improved marginally through recalibration. Adding vaccination status did not improve the performance. The CCMS can be used to inform patient prognosis, goals of care conversations and guide clinical decision-making for emergency department patients with COVID-19.

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)0.016
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 score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→