↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Missing Physiologic Data on Performance of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 Risk-Prediction Model*

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care Medicine, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of Missing Physiologic Data on Performance of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 Risk-Prediction Model*
Published in
Critical Care Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.1097/ccm.0000000000002706
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars Engerström, Thomas Nolin, Caroline Mårdh, Folke Sjöberg, Göran Karlström, Mats Fredrikson, Sten M Walther

Abstract

The Simplified Acute Physiology 3 outcome prediction model has a narrow time window for recording physiologic measurements. Our objective was to examine the prevalence and impact of missing physiologic data on the Simplified Acute Physiology 3 model's performance. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Sixty-three ICUs in the Swedish Intensive Care Registry. Patients admitted during 2011-2014 (n = 107,310). None. Model performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating curve, scaled Brier's score, and standardized mortality rate. We used a recalibrated Simplified Acute Physiology 3 model and examined model performance in the original dataset and in a dataset of complete records where missing data were generated (simulated dataset). One or more data were missing in 40.9% of the admissions, more common in survivors and low-risk admissions than in nonsurvivors and high-risk admissions. Discrimination did not decrease with one to two missing variables, but accuracy was highest with no missing data. Calibration was best in the original dataset with a mix of full records and records with some missing values (area under the receiver operating curve was 0.85, scaled Brier 27%, and standardized mortality rate 0.99). With zero, one, and two data missing, the scaled Brier was 31%, 26%, and 21%; area under the receiver operating curve was 0.84, 0.87, and 0.89; and standardized mortality rate was 0.92, 1.05 and 1.10, respectively. Datasets where the missing data were simulated for oxygenation or oxygenation and hydrogen ion concentration together performed worse than datasets with these data originally missing. There is a coupling between missing physiologic data, admission type, low risk, and survival. Increased loss of physiologic data reduced model performance and will deflate mortality risk, resulting in falsely high standardized mortality rates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Professor 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 8 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 60%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Medicine
#6,807
of 9,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,726
of 444,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Medicine
#148
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.