ArticleBMJ open2024
Forecasting disease trajectories in critical illness: comparison of probabilistic dynamic systems to static models to predict patient status in the intensive care unit.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07773571 (Development of an ICU Physiological State Space Monitor Based on the ICCA Database), which is not on this 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.
Development of an ICU Physiological State Space Monitor Based on the ICCA Database: A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Integrated Care to Learning Systems.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Redefining cardiometabolic biomarkers in the big data era: toward a personalized medicine-centered reconstruction of risk prediction models.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Prioritizing Patient Selection in Clinical Trials: A Machine Learning Algorithm for Dynamic Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality for ICU Admitted Patients Using Repeated Measurement Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveConventional prediction models fail to integrate the constantly evolving nature of critical illness. Alternative modelling approaches to study dynamic changes in critical illness progression are needed. We compare static risk prediction models to dynamic probabilistic models in early critical illness.
designWe developed models to simulate disease trajectories of critically ill COVID-19 patients across different disease states. Eighty per cent of cases were randomly assigned to a training and 20% of the cases were used as a validation cohort. Conventional risk prediction models were developed to analyse different disease states for critically ill patients for the first 7 days of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Daily disease state transitions were modelled using a series of multivariable, multinomial logistic regression models. A probabilistic dynamic systems modelling approach was used to predict disease trajectory over the first 7 days of an ICU admission. Forecast accuracy was assessed and simulated patient clinical trajectories were developed through our algorithm. SETTING AND
participantsWe retrospectively studied patients admitted to a Cleveland Clinic Healthcare System in Ohio, for the treatment of COVID-19 from March 2020 to December 2022.
results5241 patients were included in the analysis. For ICU days 2-7, the static (conventional) modelling approach, the accuracy of the models steadily decreased as a function of time, with area under the curve (AUC) for each health state below 0.8. But the dynamic forecasting approach improved its ability to predict as a function of time. AUC for the dynamic forecasting approach were all above 0.90 for ICU days 4-7 for all states.
conclusionWe demonstrated that modelling critical care outcomes as a dynamic system improved the forecasting accuracy of the disease state. Our model accurately identified different disease conditions and trajectories, with a <10% misclassification rate over the first week of critical illness.
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.