跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究医疗死亡风险预测,不属于所列宏观预测、收益预测或金融风险方向。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Stanley Lemeshow
Daniel Teres
Jill Spitz Avrunin
Harris Pastides

预测重症监护病房患者的结局

研究问题
能否利用入院时容易获得的患者信息建立医院死亡概率预测模型,并在新患者队列中评估其表现及与专家评分系统的差异?
方法与思路
作者以737名患者建立多变量逻辑回归模型,纳入昏迷、急诊入院、年龄等指标,再用1,997名连续入院患者进行验证和比较。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要报告验证队列中的拟合与分类指标,并称各方法分类表现相近,但统计模型预测的死亡概率与观察死亡情况更吻合。
阅读关注点
应核对变量筛选、缺失数据处理、拟合检验和分类阈值,区分概率校准与分类能力,并查看验证队列与建模队列的关系。
阅读边界
仅据版本未注明的索引摘要;良好的拟合检验结果不能单独证明临床效用,跨医院适用性及刊本变化未说明。

原文摘要

Statisticians are being asked with increasing frequency to develop models for occurrences in medical environments. Until recently, only subjective models were available to predict mortality for patients in an intensive care unit (ICU). These models were based on variables and associated weights determined by panels of medical “experts.” This article shows how multiple logistic regression (MLR) can be used to develop an objective model for prediction of hospital mortality among ICU patients. An MLR model to be applied when a patient is admitted to the ICU was developed on 737 ICU patients. The final model is based on the following variables: presence of coma or deep stupor at admission, emergency admission, cancer part of present problem, probable infection, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) prior to admission, age, and systolic blood pressure at admission. To validate this model, a new cohort of 1,997 consecutive ICU patients was entered into the study. Information was collected for the variables in the MLR model and, in addition, the variables necessary to evaluate the “subjective” models. The admission mortality prediction model [MPM0(CPR)] was validated on this new cohort of patients using goodness-of-fit tests. It was found that this model had excellent fit (p = .74). In addition, the overall correct classification for this model in the validation data set was 86.1%. The predictive values for dying and surviving, sensitivity, and specificity were 71.3%, 88.5%, 50.2%, and 95.0%, respectively. The direct comparison of MPM0(CPR) and the subjective systems based on the new cohort demonstrated that although all methods considered demonstrated comparable sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and total correct classification rates, goodness-of-fit tests suggest that the probabilities of hospital mortality as produced by the statistical model best fit the observed mortality experience. One of the commonly used subjective models tended to overestimate the probabilities of hospital mortality, and the other tended to underestimate these probabilities. To be useful, a severity index should be based on simple calculations using readily available data, and be independent of medical treatment in the ICU. Given the widespread availability of microcomputers, the newly developed statistical model seems to satisfy these criteria.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文