ArticleJournal of medical systems2023
Can a 5-to-90-day Mortality Predictor Perform Consistently Across Time and Equitably Across Populations?
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advance care planning (ACP) facilitates end-of-life care, yet many die without it. Timely and accurate mortality prediction may encourage ACP. However, performance of predictors typically differs among sub-populations (e.g., rural vs. urban) and worsens over time ("concept drift"). Therefore, we assessed performance equity and consistency for a novel 5-to-90-day mortality predictor across various demographies, geographies, and timeframes (n = 76,812 total encounters). Predictions were made for the first day of included adult inpatient admissions on a retrospective dataset. AUC-PR remained at 29% both pre-COVID (throughout 2018) and during COVID (8 months in 2021). Pre-COVID-19 recall and precision were 58% and 25% respectively at the 12.5% certainty cutoff, and 12% and 44% at the 37.5% cutoff. During COVID-19, recall and precision were 59% and 26% at the 12.5% cutoff, and 11% and 43% at the 37.5% cutoff. Pre-COVID, compared to the overall population, recall was lower at the 12.5% cutoff in the White, non-Hispanic subgroup and at both cutoffs in the rural subgroup. During COVID-19, precision at the 12.5% cutoff was lower than that of the overall population for the non-White and non-White female subgroups. No other significant differences were seen between subgroups and the corresponding overall population. Overall performance during COVID was unchanged from pre-pandemic performance. Although some comparisons (especially precision at the 37.5% cutoff) were underpowered, precision at the 12.5% cutoff was equitable across most demographies, regardless of the pandemic. Mortality prediction to prioritize ACP conversations can be provided consistently and equitably across many studied timeframes and sub-populations.
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.