The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Logistic Organ Dysfunction System: A New Way to Assess Organ Dysfunction in the Intensive Care Unit
Abstract
Objective. —To develop an objective method for assessing organ dysfunction among intensive care unit (ICU) patients on the first day of the ICU stay. Design and Setting. —Physiological variables defined dysfunction in 6 organ systems. Logistic regression techniques were used to determine severity levels and relative weights for the Logistic Organ Dysfunction (LOD) score and for conversion of the LOD score to a probability of mortality. Patients. —A total of 13 152 consecutive admissions to 137 adult medical/ surgical ICUs in 12 countries from the European/North American Study of Severity Systems. Outcome Measure. —Patient vital status at hospital discharge. Results. —The LOD System identified from 1 to 3 levels of organ dysfunction for 6 organ systems: neurologic, cardiovascular, renal, pulmonary, hematologic, and hepatic. From 1 to 5 LOD points were assigned to the levels of severity, and the resulting LOD scores ranged from 0 to 22 points. Model calibration was very good in the developmental and validation samples (P=.21 and P=.50, respectively), as was model discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.843 and 0.850, respectively). Conclusion. —The LOD System provides an objective tool for assessing severity levels for organ dysfunction in the ICU, a critical component in the conduct of clinical trials. Neurologic, cardiovascular, and renal dysfunction were the most severe organ dysfunctions, followed by pulmonary and hematologic dysfunction, with hepatic dysfunction the least severe. The LOD System takes into account both the relative severity among organ systems and the degree of severity within an organ system.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Marshall, J. C. (1988) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.1988.01400270043006 · Cited by 328
Cited by
The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3).
Singer, M., Deutschman, C. S., Seymour, C. W., Shankar-Hari, M., Annane, D., Bauer, M., Bellomo, R., Bernard, G. R., Chiche, J.-D., Coopersmith, C. M., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0287 · Cited by 28,250
Seymour, C. W., Liu, V. X., Iwashyna, T. J., Brunkhorst, F. M., Rea, T. D., Scherag, A., Rubenfeld, G., Kahn, J. M., Shankar-Hari, M., Singer, M., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0288 · Cited by 3,939
Vincent, J.-L., de Mendonca, A., Cantraine, F., Moreno, R., Takala, J., Suter, P. M., Sprung, C. L., Colardyn, F., & Blecher, S. (1998) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-199811000-00016 · Cited by 3,463
Clinical review: Scoring systems in the critically ill
Vincent, J.-L., & Moreno, R. (2010) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc8204 · Cited by 634
The MIMIC Code Repository: enabling reproducibility in critical care research
Johnson, A. E. W., Stone, D. J., Celi, L. A., & Pollard, T. J. (2018) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocx084 · Cited by 442
Metadata
- Authors
- Le Gall, J.-R.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1996-09-11
- Volume
- 276
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 802
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2043436644
- Cited by
- 735
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.