Key result
CoxBoost predicts 30-day cardiogenic shock mortality in the elderly with a ~0.77 C-index, outperforming standard scores.
Why the study?
Existing clinical prediction models have not performed well in assessing the prognosis and 30-day mortality of elderly patients with cardiogenic shock.
Does the CoxBoost model improve the prediction of 30-day mortality compared to traditional risk scores in elderly patients with cardiogenic shock?
Observational (n=919)
Yes
Does the CoxBoost model improve the prediction of 30-day mortality compared to traditional risk scores in elderly patients with cardiogenic shock?
Effect estimate: C index 0.7713 (95% CI 0.6751-0.8675)
A machine learning-based CoxBoost model provides superior prediction of 30-day mortality in elderly patients with cardiogenic shock compared to traditional clinical risk scores.
May aid risk stratification in elderly cardiogenic shock; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
Objective: The management of cardiogenic shock (CS) in the elderly remains a major clinical challenge. Existing clinical prediction models have not performed well in assessing the prognosis of elderly patients with CS. This study aims to build a predictive model, which could better predict the 30-day mortality of elderly patients with CS. Methods: We extracted data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III version 1.4 (MIMIC-III) as the training set and the data of validation sets were collected from the Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University. Three models, including the cox regression model, the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression model, and the CoxBoost model, were established using the training set. Through the comparison of area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), C index, net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and median improvement in risk score, the best model was selected. Then for external validation, compared the best model with the simplified acute physiology score II (SAPSII) and the CardShock risk score. Results: A total of 919 patients were included in the study, of which 804 patients were in the training set and 115 patients were in the verification set. Using the training set, we built three models: the cox regression model including 6 predictors, the LASSO regression model including 4 predictors, and the CoxBoost model including 16 predictors. Among them, the CoxBoost model had good discrimination [AUC: 0.730; C index: 0.6958 (0.6657, 0.7259)]. Compared with the CoxBoost model, the NRI, IDI, and median improvement in risk score of other models were all<0. In the validation set, the CoxBoost model was also well-discriminated [AUC: 0.770; C index: 0.7713 (0.6751, 0.8675)]. Compared with the CoxBoost model, the NRI, IDI, and median improvement in risk score of SAPS II and the CardShock risk score were all < 0. And we constructed a dynamic nomogram to visually display the model. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study showed that in predicting the 30-day mortality of elderly CS patients, the CoxBoost model was superior to the Cox regression model, LASSO regression model, SAPS II, and the CardShock risk score.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rong et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Cardiogenic shock in the elderly (n=919). CoxBoost model vs. Cox regression, LASSO regression, SAPS II, and CardShock risk score was evaluated on 30-day mortality (C index 0.7713, 95% CI 0.6751-0.8675). The CoxBoost model accurately predicted 30-day mortality in elderly patients with cardiogenic shock (validation C index 0.7713; 95% CI 0.6751-0.8675), outperforming SAPS II and CardShock scores.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: