Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37486632›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Validation of a Proprietary Deterioration Index Model and Performance in Hospitalized Adults.

Thomas F Byrd, Bronwyn Southwell, Adarsh Ravishankar, Travis Tran, Abhinab Kc, Tom Phelan, Genevieve B Melton-Meaux, Michael G Usher, Daren Scheppmann, Sean Switzer and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Rebooting artificial intelligence for health.PLOS global public health · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors.

Thomas F ByrdDepartment of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Bronwyn SouthwellDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Adarsh RavishankarDepartment of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Travis TranDepartment of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Abhinab KcUniversity of Minnesota Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Tom PhelanFairview Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Genevieve B Melton-MeauxInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Michael G UsherDepartment of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Daren ScheppmannInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Sean SwitzerDepartment of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Gyorgy SimonDepartment of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Christopher J TignanelliInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Funding

University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR002494 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R, WEISDORF, DANIEL J · 2018 to 2022
$34.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002494
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Deterioration Index (DTI), used by hospitals for predicting patient deterioration, has not been extensively validated externally, raising concerns about performance and equitable predictions. Objective: To locally validate DTI performance and assess its potential for bias in predicting patient clinical deterioration. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective prognostic study included 13 737 patients admitted to 8 heterogenous Midwestern US hospitals varying in size and type, including academic, community, urban, and rural hospitals. Patients were 18 years or older and admitted between January 1 and May 31, 2021. Exposure: DTI predictions made every 15 minutes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Deterioration, defined as the occurrence of any of the following while hospitalized: mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit transfer, or death. Performance of the DTI was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision recall curve (AUPRC). Bias measures were calculated across demographic subgroups. Results: A total of 5 143 513 DTI predictions were made for 13 737 patients across 14 834 hospitalizations. Among 13 918 encounters, the mean (SD) age of patients was 60.3 (19.2) years; 7636 (54.9%) were female, 11 345 (81.5%) were White, and 12 392 (89.0%) were of other ethnicity than Hispanic or Latino. The prevalence of deterioration was 10.3% (n = 1436). The DTI produced AUROCs of 0.759 (95% CI, 0.756-0.762) at the observation level and 0.685 (95% CI, 0.671-0.700) at the encounter level. Corresponding AUPRCs were 0.039 (95% CI, 0.037-0.040) at the observation level and 0.248 (95% CI, 0.227-0.273) at the encounter level. Bias measures varied across demographic subgroups and were 14.0% worse for patients identifying as American Indian or Alaska Native and 19.0% worse for those who chose not to disclose their ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study, the DTI had modest ability to predict patient deterioration, with varying degrees of performance at the observation and encounter levels and across different demographic groups. Disparate performance across subgroups suggests the need for more transparency in model training data and reinforces the need to locally validate externally developed prediction models.

Indexed as

EthnicityHospitalizationAdultFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37486632
PMCPMC10366696

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.