ArticleScientific reports2024
Development and validation of a mortality predictive model for ICU patients with primary pulmonary hypertension.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
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
Abstract
There is a lack of an effective prognostic model for predicting outcomes in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH). A retrospective analysis was conducted on PPH patients from MIMIC and eICU databases. A predictive model was developed to assess mortality risk. The Consistency Index (C-index) and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve were utilized to assess the overall performance of the model and its discriminatory capacity. The model's calibration and clinical applicability were assessed through calibration curve and decision curve analysis (DCA). The nomogram was employed for visual representation of the model. The study included 420 patients, 260 in the development group, 104 in the internal validation group and 56 in the external validation group. The predictive model's risk factors included age, respiratory rate, red blood cell distribution width, glucose, and SAPS II. The model demonstrated C-indexes of 0.736 and 0.696 in the development and internal validation groups, respectively. The ROC curves for the development, internal validation and external validation groups demonstrated robust discriminatory capabilities. The calibration curves indicated a slope close to 1, suggesting good calibration of the model. Additionally, DCA analysis revealed the model offered significant clinical benefits across a wide range of thresholds. The model showed good discrimination ability, accuracy and clinical application value in predicting the prognosis of patients with PPH.
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.