Cited by 85Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentMachine Learning in HealthcareEmergency and Acute Care Studies

Performance of intensive care unit severity scoring systems across different Ethnicities in the USA: a retrospective observational study

Open access
Sarkar, Rahuldeb, Martin, Christopher, Mattie, Heather, Gichoya, Judy Wawira, Stone, David J, Celi, Leo Anthony·2021·The Lancet Digital Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite wide use of severity scoring systems for case-mix determination and benchmarking in the intensive care unit (ICU), the possibility of scoring bias across ethnicities has not been examined. Guidelines on the use of illness severity scores to inform triage decisions for allocation of scarce resources, such as mechanical ventilation, during the current COVID-19 pandemic warrant examination for possible bias in these models. We investigated the performance of the severity scoring systems Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa (APACHE IVa), Oxford Acute Severity of Illness Score (OASIS), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) across four ethnicities in two large ICU databases to identify possible ethnicity-based bias. METHODS: Data from the electronic ICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) and the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III) database, built from patient episodes in the USA from 2014-15 and 2001-12, respectively, were analysed for score performance in Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White people after appropriate exclusions. Hospital mortality was the outcome of interest. Discrimination and calibration were determined for all three scoring systems in all four groups, using area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for different ethnicities to assess discrimination, and standardised mortality ratio (SMR) or proxy measures to assess calibration. FINDINGS: We analysed 166 751 participants (122 919 eICU-CRD and 43 832 MIMIC-III). Although measurements of discrimination were significantly different among the groups (AUROC ranging from 0·86 to 0·89 [p=0·016] with APACHE IVa and from 0·75 to 0·77 [p=0·85] with OASIS), they did not display any discernible systematic patterns of bias. However, measurements of calibration indicated persistent, and in some cases statistically significant, patterns of difference between Hispanic people (SMR 0·73 with APACHE IVa and 0·64 with OASIS) and Black people (0·67 and 0·68) versus Asian people (0·77 and 0·95) and White people (0·76 and 0·81). Although calibrations were imperfect for all groups, the scores consistently showed a pattern of overpredicting mortality for Black people and Hispanic people. Similar results were seen using SOFA scores across the two databases. INTERPRETATION: The systematic differences in calibration across ethnicities suggest that illness severity scores reflect statistical bias in their predictions of mortality. FUNDING: There was no specific funding for this study.

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 · 10.1016/s2589-7500(21)00022-4

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bias in clinical parameters such as glomerular filtration rate, pulse oximetry (with undiagnosed hidden hypoxemia for historically underserved patients), and differences in ICU severity scoring shape radiology data sets for machine learning through a cascade effect as they affect ordering patterns for medical images.

    “Bias in clinical parameters such as glomerular filtration rate, pulse oximetry (with undiagnosed hidden hypoxemia for historically underserved patients), 35 differences in ICU severity scoring 36 shape radiology data sets for machine learning through a cascade effect as they affect ordering patterns for medical images.”

    From AI pitfalls and what not to do: mitigating bias in AI (2023) · cites this paper as [36]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [17]Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. Off Manag Budget; Fed Regist 2010; 75: 56928– 35.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sarkar, R., Martin, C., Mattie, H., Gichoya, J. W., Stone, D. J., & Celi, L. A.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of Virginia Medical Center (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Celi, Leo Anthony
Venue
The Lancet Digital Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
e241-e249
ISSN
2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3137590022
Cited by
85
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8
FWCI
11.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01 EB017205)
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
Keywords
severity scoring systems, SOFA score, ethnic prejudice, racial disparities, in-hospital mortality prediction, discrimination and calibration, Black patients, Hispanic patients, eICU-CRD, MIMIC-III

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