Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30646310›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2018

Validation of Prediction Models for Critical Care Outcomes Using Natural Language Processing of Electronic Health Record Data.

Ben J Marafino, Miran Park, Jason M Davies, Robert Thombley, Harold S Luft, David C Sing, Dhruv S Kazi, Colette DeJong, W John Boscardin, Mitzi L Dean and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Explainable AI for Clinical Outcome Prediction: A Survey of Clinician Perceptions and Preferences.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    Article
  20. Age modulates the predictive value of self-reported sleepiness for all-cause mortality risk: insights from a comprehensive national database of veterans.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ben J MarafinoPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Miran ParkPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Jason M DaviesPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Robert ThombleyPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Harold S LuftPalo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
David C SingPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Dhruv S KaziDivision of Cardiology, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California.
Colette DeJongPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
W John BoscardinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco.
Mitzi L DeanPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
R Adams DudleyPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.

Funding

POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING IN MEDICAL INFORMATION SCIENCEST15LM007033 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SYLVIA KATINA PLEVRITIS · 1985 to 2026
$25.5M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Accurate prediction of outcomes among patients in intensive care units (ICUs) is important for clinical research and monitoring care quality. Most existing prediction models do not take full advantage of the electronic health record, using only the single worst value of laboratory tests and vital signs and largely ignoring information present in free-text notes. Whether capturing more of the available data and applying machine learning and natural language processing (NLP) can improve and automate the prediction of outcomes among patients in the ICU remains unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the change in power for a mortality prediction model among patients in the ICU achieved by incorporating measures of clinical trajectory together with NLP of clinical text and to assess the generalizability of this approach. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 101 196 patients with a first-time admission to the ICU and a length of stay of at least 4 hours. Twenty ICUs at 2 academic medical centers (University of California, San Francisco [UCSF], and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center [BIDMC], Boston, Massachusetts) and 1 community hospital (Mills-Peninsula Medical Center [MPMC], Burlingame, California) contributed data from January 1, 2001, through June 1, 2017. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2017, through August 1, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital mortality and model discrimination as assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and model calibration as assessed by the modified Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. Results: Among 101 196 patients included in the analysis, 51.3% (n = 51 899) were male, with a mean (SD) age of 61.3 (17.1) years; their in-hospital mortality rate was 10.4% (n = 10 505). A baseline model using only the highest and lowest observed values for each laboratory test result or vital sign achieved a cross-validated AUC of 0.831 (95% CI, 0.830-0.832). In contrast, that model augmented with measures of clinical trajectory achieved an AUC of 0.899 (95% CI, 0.896-0.902; P < .001 for AUC difference). Further augmenting this model with NLP-derived terms associated with mortality further increased the AUC to 0.922 (95% CI, 0.916-0.924; P < .001). These NLP-derived terms were associated with improved model performance even when applied across sites (AUC difference for UCSF: 0.077 to 0.021; AUC difference for MPMC: 0.071 to 0.051; AUC difference for BIDMC: 0.035 to 0.043; P < .001) when augmenting with NLP at each site. Conclusions and Relevance: Intensive care unit mortality prediction models incorporating measures of clinical trajectory and NLP-derived terms yielded excellent predictive performance and generalized well in this sample of hospitals. The role of these automated algorithms, particularly those using unstructured data from notes and other sources, in clinical research and quality improvement seems to merit additional investigation.

Indexed as

Critical Care OutcomesNatural Language ProcessingSeverity of Illness IndexAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCritical IllnessElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30646310
PMCPMC6324323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.