Cargando…

548 Toward a Burn Risk Calculator

INTRODUCTION: Risk adjusted statistical modeling of deaths in burns has two major purposes. One is to enable comparison of outcomes between centers (Benchmarking). That requires as precise a model as possible and is applied retrospectively. The other objective is to inform patient and family discuss...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bessey, Palmer Q, Phillips, Bart D, Phillips, Matthew H, Mandell, Samuel P, Thompson, Callie M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8945928/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irac012.176
_version_ 1784674071179427840
author Bessey, Palmer Q
Phillips, Bart D
Phillips, Matthew H
Mandell, Samuel P
Thompson, Callie M
author_facet Bessey, Palmer Q
Phillips, Bart D
Phillips, Matthew H
Mandell, Samuel P
Thompson, Callie M
author_sort Bessey, Palmer Q
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Risk adjusted statistical modeling of deaths in burns has two major purposes. One is to enable comparison of outcomes between centers (Benchmarking). That requires as precise a model as possible and is applied retrospectively. The other objective is to inform patient and family discussions about prognosis and plans of care. These models are applied prospectively based on limited clinical data. The purpose of this study was to derive a model that could be the basis for such a risk calculator. METHODS: We identified 128,252 records in a national burn registry for initial patient admissions to 103 burn centers between July 2015 through June 2020. Cases from centers with < 100 admissions annually were omitted. We compared a logistic regression model based on the revised Baux score (RBS) (age, burn size, inhalation injury) with a logistic regression model involving age, age(2), burn size, presence of 3(rd) degree burn, inhalation injury, respiratory failure, burn etiology, gender, and admission year. We compared the Adjusted R(2), c statistic and average precision for each model. All calculations were done using CatBoostClassifier in Python. RESULTS: There were 127,018 patients that served as the basis for these analyses. The RBS model had an Adjusted R(2) of 0.41 compared with 0.54 for the more detailed model, a c statistic of 0.95 vs 0.98, and an average precision of 0.69 vs 0.76. CONCLUSIONS: Both statistical models of mortality following burn injury demonstrated good accuracy. The model with the most predictor variables had better precision. Both models could serve as useful risk calculators for patients following burn injury.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8945928
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89459282022-03-28 548 Toward a Burn Risk Calculator Bessey, Palmer Q Phillips, Bart D Phillips, Matthew H Mandell, Samuel P Thompson, Callie M J Burn Care Res Medical Care, Non-critical 1 INTRODUCTION: Risk adjusted statistical modeling of deaths in burns has two major purposes. One is to enable comparison of outcomes between centers (Benchmarking). That requires as precise a model as possible and is applied retrospectively. The other objective is to inform patient and family discussions about prognosis and plans of care. These models are applied prospectively based on limited clinical data. The purpose of this study was to derive a model that could be the basis for such a risk calculator. METHODS: We identified 128,252 records in a national burn registry for initial patient admissions to 103 burn centers between July 2015 through June 2020. Cases from centers with < 100 admissions annually were omitted. We compared a logistic regression model based on the revised Baux score (RBS) (age, burn size, inhalation injury) with a logistic regression model involving age, age(2), burn size, presence of 3(rd) degree burn, inhalation injury, respiratory failure, burn etiology, gender, and admission year. We compared the Adjusted R(2), c statistic and average precision for each model. All calculations were done using CatBoostClassifier in Python. RESULTS: There were 127,018 patients that served as the basis for these analyses. The RBS model had an Adjusted R(2) of 0.41 compared with 0.54 for the more detailed model, a c statistic of 0.95 vs 0.98, and an average precision of 0.69 vs 0.76. CONCLUSIONS: Both statistical models of mortality following burn injury demonstrated good accuracy. The model with the most predictor variables had better precision. Both models could serve as useful risk calculators for patients following burn injury. Oxford University Press 2022-03-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8945928/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irac012.176 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Burn Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Care, Non-critical 1
Bessey, Palmer Q
Phillips, Bart D
Phillips, Matthew H
Mandell, Samuel P
Thompson, Callie M
548 Toward a Burn Risk Calculator
title 548 Toward a Burn Risk Calculator
title_full 548 Toward a Burn Risk Calculator
title_fullStr 548 Toward a Burn Risk Calculator
title_full_unstemmed 548 Toward a Burn Risk Calculator
title_short 548 Toward a Burn Risk Calculator
title_sort 548 toward a burn risk calculator
topic Medical Care, Non-critical 1
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8945928/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irac012.176
work_keys_str_mv AT besseypalmerq 548towardaburnriskcalculator
AT phillipsbartd 548towardaburnriskcalculator
AT phillipsmatthewh 548towardaburnriskcalculator
AT mandellsamuelp 548towardaburnriskcalculator
AT thompsoncalliem 548towardaburnriskcalculator