Mortality Prediction Performance Under Geographical, Temporal, and COVID-19 Pandemic Dataset Shift: External Validation of the Global Open-Source Severity of Illness Score Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk-prediction models are widely used for quality of care evaluations, resource management, and patient stratification in research. While established models have long been used for risk prediction, healthcare has evolved significantly, and the optimal model must be selected for evaluation in line with contemporary healthcare settings and regional considerations. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the geographic and temporal generalizability of the models for mortality prediction in ICUs through external validation in Japan. DERIVATION COHORT: Not applicable. VALIDATION COHORT: The care Japanese Intensive care PAtient Database from 2015 to 2022. PREDICTION MODEL: The Global Open-Source Severity of Illness Score (GOSSIS-1), a modern risk model utilizing machine learning approaches, was compared with conventional models-the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II and APACHE-III)-and a locally calibrated model, the Japan Risk of Death (JROD). RESULTS: Despite the demographic and clinical differences of the validation cohort, GOSSIS-1 maintained strong discrimination, achieving an area under the curve of 0.908, comparable to APACHE-III (0.908) and JROD (0.910). It also exhibited superior calibration, achieving a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.88-0.90), significantly outperforming APACHE-II (SMR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.39-0.40) and APACHE-III (SMR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.46-0.47), and demonstrating a performance close to that of JROD (SMR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99). However, performance varied significantly across disease categories, with suboptimal calibration for neurologic conditions and trauma. While the model showed temporal stability from 2015 to 2019, performance deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic, broadly reducing performance across disease categories in 2020. This trend was particularly pronounced in GOSSIS compared with APACHE-III. CONCLUSIONS: GOSSIS-1 demonstrates robust discrimination despite substantial geographic dataset shift but shows important calibration variations across disease categories. In particular, in a complex model like GOSSIS-1, stresses on the health system, such as a pandemic, can manifest changes in model calibration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".