ArticleEpilepsia2022
Machine learning validation through decision tree analysis of the Epidemiology-Based Mortality Score in Status Epilepticus.
Article in Epilepsia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of delivery of care with Tele-continuous EEG in critically ill patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (Tele-cRCT study) study.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Personalizing fall fear prevention in knee osteoarthritis: an interpretable prediction framework via IGKSO synchronous optimization and SHAP-based risk stratification.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Retrospective External Validation of the Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS) to Predict In-hospital Mortality in Adults with Nonhypoxic Status Epilepticus: A Machine Learning Analysis.Neurocritical care · 2023Article
- Machine learning validation through decision tree analysis of the Epidemiology-Based Mortality Score in Status Epilepticus.Epilepsia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was undertaken to validate the accuracy of the Epidemiology-Based Mortality Score in Status Epilepticus (EMSE) in predicting the risk of death at 30 days in a large cohort of patients with status epilepticus (SE) using a machine learning system.
methodsWe included consecutive patients with SE admitted from 2013 to 2021 at Modena Academic Hospital. A decision tree analysis was performed using the 30-day mortality as a dependent variable and the EMSE predictors as input variables. We evaluated the accuracy of EMSE in predicting 30-day mortality using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC ROC), with 95% confidence interval (CI). We performed a subgroup analysis on nonhypoxic SE.
resultsA total of 698 patients with SE were included, with a 30-day mortality of 28.9% (202/698). The mean EMSE value in the entire population was 57.1 (SD = 36.3); it was lower in surviving compared to deceased patients (47.1, SD = 31.7 vs. 81.9, SD = 34.8; p < .001). The EMSE was accurate in predicting 30-day mortality, with an AUC ROC of .782 (95% CI = .747-.816). Etiology was the most relevant predictor, followed by age, electroencephalogram (EEG), and EMSE comorbidity group B. The decision tree analysis using EMSE variables correctly predicted the risk of mortality in 77.9% of cases; the prediction was accurate in 85.7% of surviving and in 58.9% of deceased patients within 30 days after SE. In nonhypoxic SE, the most relevant predictor was age, followed by EEG, and EMSE comorbidity group B; the prediction was correct in 78.9% of all cases (89.6% in survivors and 46.1% in nonsurvivors). SIGNIFICANCE: This validation study using a machine learning analysis shows that the EMSE is a valuable prognostic tool, and appears particularly accurate and effective in identifying patients with 30-day survival, whereas its performance in predicting 30-day mortality is lower and needs to be further improved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.