Repeated prognosis in the intensive care: How well do physicians and temporal models perform?

1Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Recently, we devised a method to develop prognostic models incorporating patterns of sequential organ failure to predict the eventual hospital mortality at each day of intensive care stay. In this study, we aimed to understand, using a real world setting, how these models perform compared to physicians, who are exposed to additional information than the models. We found a slightly better discriminative ability for physicians (AUC range over days: 0.73-0.83 vs. 0.70-0.80) and a slightly better accuracy for the models (Brier score range: 0.14-0.19 vs. 0.16-0.19). However when we combined both sources of predictions we arrived at a significantly superior discrimination as well as accuracy (AUC range: 0.81-0.88; Brier score range: 0.11-0.15). Our results show that the models and the physicians draw on complementary information that can be best harnessed by combining both prediction sources. Extensive external validation and impact studies are imperative to further investigate the ability of the combined model. © 2011 Springer-Verlag.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Minne, L., De Jonge, E., & Abu-Hanna, A. (2011). Repeated prognosis in the intensive care: How well do physicians and temporal models perform? In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 6747 LNAI, pp. 230–239). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22218-4_29

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free