ArticleCritical care (London, England)2026
Augmenting the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II for intensive care unit mortality prediction and benchmarking: a French nationwide study.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeverity scoring systems such as the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) are widely used for benchmarking intensive care unit (ICU) performance, but their calibration deteriorates over time, leading to systematic overestimation of mortality in contemporary populations. We aimed to evaluate recalibrated SAPS II (r-SAPS II) and augmented SAPS II (Aug-SAPS II) models for mortality prediction using routinely collected national data.
methodsThis nationwide retrospective study used the French national database of hospital stays. Adult ICU stays from 2015 to 2023 constituted the derivation cohort; 2024 data were used for temporal external validation, and 2025 data for sensitivity analyses. Demographic characteristics, SAPS II score, and ICD-10–derived comorbidities defined according to the Elixhauser classification, were used to construct aug-SAPS II model. Model calibration was assessed using Cox calibration regression and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), defined as the ratio of observed to predicted in-hospital deaths. Discrimination and between-hospital heterogeneity were quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and random-effects variance in SMRs from mixed-effects Poisson regression.
resultsIn the derivation cohort (2 156 332 ICU stays), discrimination improved, with the AUC increasing from 0.841 (95% CI, 0.840–0.841) for SAPS II to 0.866 (95% CI, 0.865–0.866) for aug-SAPS II. Calibration improved for both r-SAPS II and aug-SAPS II, with calibration-in-the-large shifting from − 1.10 to approximately 0.00 and calibration slope from 0.72 to approximately 1.00 at both the hospital level and across clinical subgroups. In the validation cohort (242 465 stays), calibration remained close to ideal and SMRs were near 1; AUCs were 0.835 (95% CI, 0.833–0.837) for SAPS II and 0.862 (95% CI, 0.860–0.864) for aug-SAPS II. Hospital-level random-effects variance was unchanged with r-SAPS II but decreased by 28.7% with aug-SAPS II. Findings were consistent in 2025 data.
conclusionsCompared with the original SAPS II, aug-SAPS II improved calibration and discrimination and reduced between-hospital variability without requiring additional data beyond routinely collected national administrative information.
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.