Cited by 1,764Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patientsHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV: Hospital mortality assessment for today’s critically ill patients*

Zimmerman, Jack E., Kramer, Andrew A., McNair, Douglas S., Malila, Fern M.·2006·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Objective To improve the accuracy of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) method for predicting hospital mortality among critically ill adults and to evaluate changes in the accuracy of earlier APACHE models. Design : Observational cohort study. Setting A total of 104 intensive care units (ICUs) in 45 U.S. hospitals. Patients A total of 131,618 consecutive ICU admissions during 2002 and 2003, of which 110,558 met inclusion criteria and had complete data. Interventions None. Measurements and main results We developed APACHE IV using ICU day 1 information and a multivariate logistic regression procedure to estimate the probability of hospital death for randomly selected patients who comprised 60% of the database. Predictor variables were similar to those in APACHE III, but new variables were added and different statistical modeling used. We assessed the accuracy of APACHE IV predictions by comparing observed and predicted hospital mortality for the excluded patients (validation set). We tested discrimination and used multiple tests of calibration in aggregate and for patient subgroups. APACHE IV had good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.88) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow C statistic = 16.9, p = .08). For 90% of 116 ICU admission diagnoses, the ratio of observed to predicted mortality was not significantly different from 1.0. We also used the validation data set to compare the accuracy of APACHE IV predictions to…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.ccm.0000215112.84523.f0

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Traditional severity scoring systems typically focus on mortality prediction rather than dynamic changes in patient recovery trajectories.

    “Furthermore, these scoring systems typically focus on mortality prediction rather than the dynamic changes in patient recovery trajectories7,8.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zimmerman, J. E., Kramer, A. A., McNair, D. S., & Malila, F. M.
Affiliations
George Washington University (US)
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2006-05
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
1297-1310
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2000566182
Cited by
1,764
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 101 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 104 · 2023: 114 · 2022: 150 · 2021: 147 · 2020: 147 · 2019: 114 · 2018: 98 · 2017: 76 · 2016: 94 · 2015: 88 · 2014: 83 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 60
FWCI
36.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Keywords
APACHE IV, APACHE III, in-hospital mortality prediction, critically ill adults, intensive care unit, prognostic model validation, discrimination and calibration, model updating
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Calibration, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, ROC Curve, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Critical Illness, Hospital Mortality, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, APACHE

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