ArticlePloS one2025
Clinical assessment of the criticality index - dynamic, a machine learning prediction model of future care needs in pediatric inpatients.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess patient characteristics and care factors that are associated with correct and incorrect predictions of future care locations (ICU vs. non-ICU) by the Criticality Index-Dynamic (CI-D), with the goal of enhancing the CI-D.
designRetrospective structured chart review.
participantsAll pediatric inpatients admitted from January` 1st 2018 - February 29th 2020 through the emergency department. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): Patient characteristics and care factors associated with correct (true positives, true negatives) and incorrect predictions (false positives, false negatives) of future care locations (ICU vs. non-ICU) by the CI-D were assessed.
resultsOf the 3,018, patients, 139 transitioned from non-ICU locations to ICU care; 482 were transferred from the ICU to non-ICU care locations, and 2,400 remained in non-ICU care locations. For the ICU Prediction group, the false negative patients were older, more frequently male, and had longer hospital and ICU lengths of stay compared to the true positive patients. The significant differences in the ICU Prediction group for false negative compared to the true positive patients included a less frequent: primary diagnosis of respiratory failure, use of high flow nasal canula, hourly cardio-respiratory vital signs prior to transfer to the ICU, and neurologic vital signs after transfer from the ICU. For the ICU Discharge prediction group, false positive patients were more frequently: younger, had a primary diagnosis of respiratory failure, more frequently received respiratory support after discharge from the ICU, and received less frequent neurological vital signs prior to transfer from the ICU. For the Non-transfer prediction category, demographics and clinical variables did not differ between the true negative and false positive prediction groups. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: We conducted the first comprehensive analysis via structured chart reviews of patient characteristics and care factors that are associated with correct and incorrect predictions of future care locations by the machine learning algorithm, the CI-D, gaining insights into potential new predictor variables for inclusion in the model to improve future model iterations.
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.