Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 165

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Predicting hospital mortality for patients in the intensive care unit: A comparison of artificial neural networks with logistic regression models

Clermont, Gilles, Angus, Derek C., DiRusso, Stephen M., Griffin, Martin, Linde-Zwirble, Walter T.·2001·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Logistic regression (LR), commonly used for hospital mortality prediction, has limitations. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) have been proposed as an alternative. We compared the performance of these approaches by using stepwise reductions in sample size. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Seven intensive care units (ICU) at one tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Patients were 1,647 ICU admissions for whom first-day Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III variables were collected. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We constructed LR and ANN models on a random set of 1,200 admissions (development set) and used the remaining 447 as the validation set. We repeated model construction on progressively smaller development sets (800, 400, and 200 admissions) and retested on the original validation set (n = 447). For each development set, we constructed models from two LR and two ANN architectures, organizing the independent variables differently. With the 1,200-admission development set, all models had good fit and discrimination on the validation set, where fit was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow C statistic (range, 10.6-15.3; p > or = .05) and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) (range, 0.93 [95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.15] to 1.09 [95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.38]), and discrimination was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (range, 0.80-0.84). As development set sample size decreased, model performance on the validation set deteriorated rapidly, although the ANNs retained marginally better fit at 800 (best C statistic was 26.3 [p = .0009] and 13.1 [p = .11] for the LR and ANN models). Below 800, fit was poor with both approaches, with high C statistics (ranging from 22.8 [p <.004] to 633 [p <.0001]) and highly biased SMRs (seven of the eight models below 800 had SMRs of <0.85, with an upper confidence interval of <1). Discrimination ranged from 0.74 to 0.84 below 800. CONCLUSIONS: When sample size is adequate, LR and ANN models have similar performance. However, development sets of < or = 800 were generally inadequate. This is concerning, given typical sample sizes used for individual ICU mortality prediction.

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 · 10.1097/00003246-200102000-00012

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.

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

Cited by

See all 165

Metadata

Authors
Clermont, G., Angus, D. C., DiRusso, S. M., Griffin, M., & Linde-Zwirble, W. T.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2001-02
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
291-296
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092762545
Cited by
165
References
0
FWCI
7.89
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting hospital mortality for patients in the intensive care unit: A comparison of artificial neural networks with logistic regression models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003246-200102000-00012
The paper
Clermont, G., Angus, D. C., DiRusso, S. M., Griffin, M., & Linde-Zwirble, W. T. (2001). Predicting hospital mortality for patients in the intensive care unit: A comparison of artificial neural networks with logistic regression models. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200102000-00012

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.