Dataset Information

Severity Trajectories of Pediatric Inpatients Using the Criticality Index.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess severity of illness trajectories described by the Criticality Index for survivors and deaths in five patient groups defined by the sequence of patient care in ICU and routine patient care locations.

Design

The Criticality Index developed using a calibrated, deep neural network, measures severity of illness using physiology, therapies, and therapeutic intensity. Criticality Index values in sequential 6-hour time periods described severity trajectories.

Setting

Hospitals with pediatric inpatient and ICU care.

Patients

Pediatric patients never cared for in an ICU (n = 20,091), patients only cared for in the ICU (n = 2,096) and patients cared for in both ICU and non-ICU care locations (n = 17,023) from 2009 to 2016 Health Facts database (Cerner Corporation, Kansas City, MO).

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

Criticality Index values were consistent with clinical experience. The median (25-75th percentile) ICU Criticality Index values (0.878 [0.696-0.966]) were more than 80-fold higher than the non-ICU values (0.010 [0.002-0.099]). Non-ICU Criticality Index values for patients transferred to the ICU were 40-fold higher than those never transferred to the ICU (0.164 vs 0.004). The median for ICU deaths was higher than ICU survivors (0.983 vs 0.875) (p < 0.001). The severity trajectories for the five groups met expectations based on clinical experience. Survivors had increasing Criticality Index values in non-ICU locations prior to ICU admission, decreasing Criticality Index values in the ICU, and decreasing Criticality Index values until hospital discharge. Deaths had higher Criticality Index values than survivors, steeper increases prior to the ICU, and worsening values in the ICU. Deaths had a variable course, especially those who died in non-ICU care locations, consistent with deaths associated with both active therapies and withdrawals/limitations of care.

Conclusions

Severity trajectories measured by the Criticality Index showed strong validity, reflecting the expected clinical course for five diverse patient groups.

SUBMITTER: Rivera EAT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7790848 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Develop and compare separate prediction models for ICU and non-ICU care for hospitalized children in four future time periods (6-12, 12-18, 18-24, and 24-30 hr) and assess these models in an independent cohort and simulated children's hospital.DesignPredictive modeling used cohorts from the Health Facts database (Cerner Corporation, Kansas City, MO).SettingChildren hospitalized in ICUs.PatientsChildren with greater than or equal to one ICU admission (n = 20,014) and randomly selected routine care children without ICU admission (n = 20,130) from 2009 to 2016 were used for model development and validation. An independent 2017-2018 cohort consisted of 80,089 children.InterventionsNone.Measurement and main resultsInitially, we undersampled non-ICU patients for development and comparison of the models. We randomly assigned 64% of patients for training, 8% for validation, and 28% for testing in both clinical groups. Two additional validation cohorts were tested: a simulated children's hospitals and the 2017-2018 cohort. The main outcome was ICU care or non-ICU care in four future time periods based on physiology, therapy, and care intensity. Four independent, sequential, and fully connected neural networks were calibrated to risk of ICU care at each time period. Performance for all models in the test sample were comparable including sensitivity greater than or equal to 0.727, specificity greater than or equal to 0.885, accuracy greater than 0.850, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves greater than or equal to 0.917, and all had excellent calibration (all R2 s > 0.98). Model performance in the 2017-2018 cohort was sensitivity greater than or equal to 0.545, specificity greater than or equal to 0.972, accuracy greater than or equal to 0.921, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves greater than or equal to 0.946, and R2 s greater than or equal to 0.979. Performance metrics were comparable for the simulated children's hospital and for hospitals stratified by teaching status, bed numbers, and geographic location.ConclusionsMachine learning models using physiology, therapy, and care intensity predicting future care needs had promising performance metrics. Notably, performance metrics were similar as the prediction time periods increased from 6-12 hours to 24-30 hours.

Project description:ObjectivesTo validate the conceptual framework of "criticality," a new pediatric inpatient severity measure based on physiology, therapy, and therapeutic intensity calibrated to care intensity, operationalized as ICU care.DesignDeep neural network analysis of a pediatric cohort from the Health Facts (Cerner Corporation, Kansas City, MO) national database.SettingHospitals with pediatric routine inpatient and ICU care.PatientsChildren cared for in the ICU (n = 20,014) and in routine care units without an ICU admission (n = 20,130) from 2009 to 2016. All patients had laboratory, vital sign, and medication data.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsA calibrated, deep neural network used physiology (laboratory tests and vital signs), therapy (medications), and therapeutic intensity (number of physiology tests and medications) to model care intensity, operationalized as ICU (versus routine) care every 6 hours of a patient's hospital course. The probability of ICU care is termed the Criticality Index. First, the model demonstrated excellent separation of criticality distributions from a severity hierarchy of five patient groups: routine care, routine care for those who also received ICU care, transition from routine to ICU care, ICU care, and high-intensity ICU care. Second, model performance assessed with statistical metrics was excellent with an area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic of 0.95 for 327,189 6-hour time periods, excellent calibration, sensitivity of 0.817, specificity of 0.892, accuracy of 0.866, and precision of 0.799. Third, the performance in individual patients with greater than one care designation indicated as 88.03% (95% CI, 87.72-88.34) of the Criticality Indices in the more intensive locations was higher than the less intense locations.ConclusionsThe Criticality Index is a quantification of severity of illness for hospitalized children using physiology, therapy, and care intensity. This new conceptual model is applicable to clinical investigations and predicting future care needs.