ArticlePloS one2024
External evaluation of the Dynamic Criticality Index: A machine learning model to predict future need for ICU care in hospitalized pediatric patients.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Continuous Electroencephalography, Clinical Parameters, and Short-Term Functional Outcomes in Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury: Single-Center, Retrospective Cohort, 2010-2020.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2025Article
- Article
- Development of a neural network model for early detection of creatinine change in critically Ill children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the single site performance of the Dynamic Criticality Index (CI-D) models developed from a multi-institutional database to predict future care. Secondarily, to assess future care-location predictions in a single institution when CI-D models are re-developed using single-site data with identical variables and modeling methods. Four CI-D models were assessed for predicting care locations >6-12 hours, >12-18 hours, >18-24 hours, and >24-30 hours in the future.
designPrognostic study comparing multi-institutional CI-D models' performance in a single-site electronic health record dataset to an institution-specific CI-D model developed using identical variables and modelling methods. The institution did not participate in the multi-institutional dataset.
participantsAll pediatric inpatients admitted from January 1st 2018 -February 29th 2020 through the emergency department. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): The main outcome was inpatient care in routine or ICU care locations.
resultsA total of 29,037 pediatric hospital admissions were included, with 5,563 (19.2%) admitted directly to the ICU, 869 (3.0%) transferred from routine to ICU care, and 5,023 (17.3%) transferred from ICU to routine care. Patients had a median [IQR] age 68 months (15-157), 47.5% were female and 43.4% were black. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for the multi-institutional CI-D models applied to a single-site test dataset was 0.493-0.545 and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) was 0.262-0.299. The single-site CI-D models applied to an independent single-site test dataset had an AUROC 0.906-0.944 and AUPRC range from 0.754-0.824. Accuracy at 0.95 sensitivity for those transferred from routine to ICU care was 72.6%-81.0%. Accuracy at 0.95 specificity was 58.2%-76.4% for patients who transferred from ICU to routine care. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Models developed from multi-institutional datasets and intended for application to individual institutions should be assessed locally and may benefit from re-development with site-specific data prior to deployment.
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.