Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 674

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and Validation of a Prognostic Index for 1-Year Mortality in Older Adults After Hospitalization

Walter, Louise C.·2001·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.285.23.2987
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: For many elderly patients, an acute medical illness requiring hospitalization is followed by a progressive decline, resulting in high rates of mortality in this population during the year following discharge. However, few prognostic indices have focused on predicting posthospital mortality in older adults. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prognostic index for 1 year mortality of older adults after hospital discharge using information readily available at discharge. DESIGN: Data analyses derived from 2 prospective studies with 1-year of follow-up, conducted in 1993 through 1997. SETTING AND PATIENTS: We developed the prognostic index in 1495 patients aged at least 70 years who were discharged from a general medical service at a tertiary care hospital (mean age, 81 years; 67% female) and validated it in 1427 patients discharged from a separate community teaching hospital (mean age, 79 years; 61% female). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Prediction of 1-year mortality using risk factors such as demographic characteristics, activities of daily living (ADL) dependency, comorbid conditions, length of hospital stay, and laboratory measurements. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, 6 independent risk factors for mortality were identified and weighted using logistic regression: male sex (1 point); number of dependent ADLs at discharge (1-4 ADLs, 2 points; all 5 ADLs, 5 points); congestive heart failure (2 points); cancer (solitary, 3 points; metastatic, 8 points); creatinine level higher than 3.0 mg/dL (265 micromol/L) (2 points); and low albumin level (3.0-3.4 g/dL, 1 point; <3.0 g/dL, 2 points). Several variables associated with 1-year mortality in bivariable analyses, such as age and dementia, were not independently associated with mortality after adjustment for functional status. We calculated risk scores for patients by adding the points of each independent risk factor present. In the derivation cohort, 1-year mortality was 13% in the lowest-risk group (0-1 point), 20% in the group with 2 or 3 points, 37% in the group with 4 to 6 points, and 68% in the highest-risk group (>6 points). In the validation cohort, 1-year mortality was 4% in the lowest-risk group, 19% in the group with 2 or 3 points, 34% in the group with 4 to 6 points, and 64% in the highest-risk group. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the point system was 0.75 in the derivation cohort and 0.79 in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our prognostic index, which used 6 risk factors known at discharge and a simple additive point system to stratify medical patients 70 years or older according to 1-year mortality after hospitalization, had good discrimination and calibration and generalized well in an independent sample of patients at a different site. These characteristics suggest that our index may be useful for clinical care and risk adjustment.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.285.23.2987

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Walter, L. C.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2001-06-20
Volume
285
Issue
23
Pages
2987
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.285.23.2987
OpenAlex
W2152521049
Cited by
674
References
6
FWCI
10.67
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.