Default Handling of the Non-Assessable Verbal Glasgow Coma Scale Misclassifies Illness Severity in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Retrospective Analysis
Gorenshtein, A.; Adiniaev, Y.; Omar, M.; Barash, Y.; Klang, E.; Daniel, O.
Show abstract
Background: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a universal neurologic severity score in the intensive care unit and is incorporated into APACHE, SOFA, mortality prediction models, ICU benchmarking, and quality metrics. In mechanically ventilated patients, however, the verbal component cannot be assessed. Common conventions, including assigning a normal total GCS of 15 or excluding patients with missing verbal scores, may misclassify the sickest patients as neurologically normal or remove them from analysis. Objective: To quantify non-assessable verbal GCS examinations after acute brain injury and determine how different handling conventions affect severity scoring and mortality-model performance across two independent critical care databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with acute brain injury during their first ICU stay in MIMIC-IV, with replication in eICU-CRD. A verbal examination was considered non-assessable when documented as No Response-ETT. We measured the burden and determinants of non-assessability, compared the MIMIC-IV derived GCS convention with a component-aware GCS, and evaluated mortality-model handling strategies. Results: Among 14,230 patients, 45.2% had a non-assessable verbal examination, and 47.5% of ventilated patients had no assessable verbal score in the first 24 hours. Non-assessability was strongly associated with mechanical ventilation and mortality. The MIMIC-IV derived GCS assigned a score of 15 to 42.9% of patients and placed 11.6% in the lowest severity category despite eye and motor findings consistent with GCS [≤]9. Complete-case handling excluded 28.5% of patients, who accounted for 50.2% of deaths. Similar distortions were observed in eICU-CRD/APACHE across 171 hospitals. Discussion: Default-to-normal scoring can make severely ill intubated patients appear neurologically normal, while complete-case analysis removes the highest-risk patients. Conclusion: Non-assessable verbal GCS in mechanically ventilated patients should be explicitly flagged and reported in ICU severity scores, risk-adjusted mortality models, and benchmarking systems.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of intensive care unit severity scoring systems across different ethnicities. 93%
- Real-world evaluation of AI-driven COVID-19 triage for emergency admissions: External validation & operational assessment of lab-free and high-throughput screening solutions 92%
- Understanding COVID-19 trajectories from a nationwide linked electronic health record cohort of 56 million people: phenotypes, severity, waves & vaccination 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Modeling trajectories of routine blood tests as dynamic biomarkers for outcome in spinal cord injury 92%
- Novel clinical subphenotypes in COVID-19: derivation, validation, prediction, temporal patterns, and interaction with social determinants of health 92%
- Development of a predictive risk model for severe COVID-19 disease using population-based administrative data 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Estimating Risk of Mechanical Ventilation and Mortality Among Adult COVID-19 patients Admitted to Mass General Brigham: The VICE and DICE Scores 92%
- Effectiveness of Rosuvastatin plus Colchicine, Emtricitabine/Tenofovir and a combination of them in Hospitalized Patients with SARS Covid-19 90%
- Medium-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on multiple vital organs, exercise capacity, cognition, quality of life and mental health, post-hospital discharge 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID Outcome Prediction in the Emergency Department (COPE): Development and validation of a model for predicting death and need for intensive care in COVID-19 patients 93%
- Development and validation of a clinical risk score to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in emergency department patients: The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Infection Score (CCIS) 93%
- The COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium observational study: Design and rationale of a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- ABCDEF Bundle Implementation: The influence of access to bundle-enhancing supplies and equipment 92%
- A Transcriptomic Severity Metric that Predicts Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Surgical Sepsis Patients 91%
- A Multicenter Evaluation of Blood Purification with Seraph 100 Microbind Affinity Blood Filter for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19: A Preliminary Report 91%
"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.