Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32894128›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

Development, implementation, and prospective validation of a model to predict 60-day end-of-life in hospitalized adults upon admission at three sites.

Vincent J Major, Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Vincent J MajorDepartment of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, 227 East 30th St, 6th Floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA. vincent.major@nyulangone.org.ORCID 0000-0003-2604-3458
Yindalon AphinyanaphongsDepartment of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, 227 East 30th St, 6th Floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomated systems that use machine learning to estimate a patient's risk of death are being developed to influence care. There remains sparse transparent reporting of model generalizability in different subpopulations especially for implemented systems.

methodsA prognostic study included adult admissions at a multi-site, academic medical center between 2015 and 2017. A predictive model for all-cause mortality (including initiation of hospice care) within 60 days of admission was developed. Model generalizability is assessed in temporal validation in the context of potential demographic bias. A subsequent prospective cohort study was conducted at the same sites between October 2018 and June 2019. Model performance during prospective validation was quantified with areas under the receiver operating characteristic and precision recall curves stratified by site. Prospective results include timeliness, positive predictive value, and the number of actionable predictions.

resultsThree years of development data included 128,941 inpatient admissions (94,733 unique patients) across sites where patients are mostly white (61%) and female (60%) and 4.2% led to death within 60 days. A random forest model incorporating 9614 predictors produced areas under the receiver operating characteristic and precision recall curves of 87.2 (95% CI, 86.1-88.2) and 28.0 (95% CI, 25.0-31.0) in temporal validation. Performance marginally diverges within sites as the patient mix shifts from development to validation (patients of one site increases from 10 to 38%). Applied prospectively for nine months, 41,728 predictions were generated in real-time (median [IQR], 1.3 [0.9, 32] minutes). An operating criterion of 75% positive predictive value identified 104 predictions at very high risk (0.25%) where 65% (50 from 77 well-timed predictions) led to death within 60 days.

conclusionTemporal validation demonstrates good model discrimination for 60-day mortality. Slight performance variations are observed across demographic subpopulations. The model was implemented prospectively and successfully produced meaningful estimates of risk within minutes of admission.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsHospitalizationMachine LearningPatient AdmissionAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMortalityPrognosisProspective StudiesYoung AdultAdvance directivesElectronic health recordsEnd-of-life careMachine learningMedical informaticsMortality predictionPalliative careSupportive care

Identifiers

PMID32894128
PMCPMC7487547

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.