Mapping physicians' admission diagnoses to structured concepts towards fully automatic calculation of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation score
Objective Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) is most widely used as a mortality prediction score in US intensive care units (ICUs), but its calculation is onerous. The authors aimed to develop and validate automatic mapping of physicians' admission diagnoses to structured concepts for automated APACHE IV calculation. Methods This retrospective study was conducted in medical ICUs of a tertiary healthcare and academic centre. Boolean-logic text searches were used to map admission diagnoses, and these were compared with conventional APACHE database entry by bedside nurses and a gold-standard physician chart review. The primary outcome was APACHE IV predicted hospital mortality. The tool was developed in a larger cohort of ICU patients. Results In a derivation cohort of 192 consecutive critically ill patients, the diagnosis coefficient coded by three different methods had a positive correlation, highest between manual and gold standard (r(2)=0.95; mean square error (MSE)=0.040) and least between manual and automatic tool (r(2)=0.88; MSE=0.066). The automatic tool had an area under the curve (95% CI) value of 0.82 (0.74 to 0.90) which was similar to the physician gold standard, 0.83 (0.75 to 0.91) and standard manual entry, 0.81 (0.73 to 0.89). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test demonstrated good calibration of automatically calculated APACHE IV score (χ(2)=6.46; p=0.6). The automatic tool demonstrated excellent discrimination with an area under the curve value of 0.87 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.92) and good calibration (p=0.58) in the validation cohort of 593 patients. Conclusion A Boolean-logic text search is an efficient alternative to manual database entry for mapping of ICU admission diagnosis to structured APACHE IV concepts.
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 15 November 2011.
All research outputs
#14,721,336
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#16,217
of 22,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,585
of 141,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#56
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 141,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
