Q3: An ICU Acuity Score for Exploring the Effects of Changing Acuity Throughout the Stay
Brossette, S. E.; Zheng, N.; Wong, D. Y.; Hymel, P. A.
Show abstract
IntroWe develop a straightforward ICU acuity score (Q3) that is calculated every 3 hours throughout the first 10 days of the ICU stay. Q3 uses components of the Oxford Acute Severity of Illness Score (OASIS) and incorporates a new component score for vasopressor use. In well-behaved models of ICU mortality, the marginal effects of Q3 are significant across the first 10 days of the ICU stay. In separate models, Q3 has significant effects on ICU remaining length of stay. The score has implications for work that seeks to explain modifiable mechanisms of changing acuity during the ICU stay. MethodsFrom the MIMIC-III database, select ICU stays from 5 adult ICUs were partitioned into consecutive 3-hour segments. For each segment, the number of vasopressors administered and all 10 OASIS component scores were computed. Models of ICU mortality were estimated. OASIS component effects were examined, and vasopressor count bins were weighted. Q3 was defined as the sum of 8 retained OASIS components and a new weighted vasopressor score. Models of ICU mortality quadratic in Q3 were estimated for each of the first 10 ICU days and were subjected to segment-level, location-specific tests of discrimination and calibration on newer ICU stays. Marginal effects of Q3 were computed at different levels of Q3 by ICU day, and average marginal effects of Q3 were computed at each location by ICU day. ICU remaining length of stay (LOS) models were also estimated and the effects of Q3 were similarly examined. ResultsDaily ICU mortality models using Q3 show no evidence of misspecification (Pearson-Windmeijer p>0.05, Stukel p>0.05), discriminate well in all ICUs over the first 10 days (AUROC [~] 0.72 - 0.85), and are generally well calibrated (Hosemer-Lemeshow p>0.05, Spiegelhalters z p>0.05). A one-unit increase in Q3 from typical levels (Q3=15) affects the odds of ICU mortality by a factor of 1.14 to 1.20, depending on ICU day (p<0.001), and the ICU remaining LOS by 5.8 to 9.6% (p<0.001). On average, a one-unit increase in Q3 increases the probability of ICU mortality by 1 to 2 percentage points depending on location and ICU day, and ICU remaining LOS by 5 to 10 hours depending on location and ICU day. ConclusionQ3 significantly affects ICU mortality and ICU remaining LOS in different ICUs across the first 10 days of the ICU stay. Depending on location and ICU day, a one-unit increase in Q3 increases the probability of ICU mortality by or 1-2 percentage points and ICU remaining LOS by 5 to 10 hours. Unlike static acuity scores or those updated infrequently, Q3 could be used in explanatory models to help elucidate mechanisms of changing ICU acuity.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Hospital Mortality in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients 95%
- Derivation and validation of a triage tool for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study 94%
- A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Implicit bias in Critical Care Data: Factors affecting sampling frequencies and missingness patterns of clinical and biological variables in ICU Patients 96%
- OASIS+: leveraging machine learning to improve the prognostic accuracy of OASIS severity score for predicting in-hospital mortality 95%
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identification of predictive patient characteristics for assessing the probability of COVID-19 in-hospital mortality 94%
- Use of a Continuous Single Lead Electrocardiogram Analytic to Predict Patient Deterioration Requiring Rapid Response Team Activation 93%
- Generalizability Challenges of Mortality Risk Prediction Models: A Retrospective Analysis on a Multi-center Database 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.