Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 316

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk-Adjusting Hospital Inpatient Mortality Using Automated Inpatient, Outpatient, and Laboratory Databases

Escobar, Gabriel J., Greene, John D., Scheirer, Peter, Gardner, Marla N., Draper, David, Kipnis, Patricia·2008·Medical Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To develop a risk-adjustment methodology that maximizes the use of automated physiology and diagnosis data from the time period preceding hospitalization. DESIGN: : Retrospective cohort study using split-validation and logistic regression. SETTING: Seventeen hospitals in a large integrated health care delivery system. SUBJECTS: Patients (n = 259,699) hospitalized between January 2002 and June 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inpatient and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Inpatient mortality was 3.50%; 30-day mortality was 4.06%. We tested logistic regression models in a randomly chosen derivation dataset consisting of 50% of the records and applied their coefficients to the validation dataset. The final model included sex, age, admission type, admission diagnosis, a Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score (LAPS), and a COmorbidity Point Score (COPS). The LAPS integrates information from 14 laboratory tests obtained in the 24 hours preceding hospitalization into a single continuous variable. Using Diagnostic Cost Groups software, we categorized patients as having up to 40 different comorbidities based on outpatient and inpatient data from the 12 months preceding hospitalization. The COPS integrates information regarding these 41 comorbidities into a single continuous variable. Our best model for inpatient mortality had a c statistic of 0.88 in the validation dataset, whereas the c statistic for 30-day mortality was 0.86; both models had excellent calibration. Physiologic data accounted for a substantial proportion of the model's predictive ability. CONCLUSION: Efforts to support improvement of hospital outcomes can take advantage of risk-adjustment methods based on automated physiology and diagnosis data that are not confounded by information obtained after hospital admission.

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/mlr.0b013e3181589bb6

Cites

34 of 34 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 34 references

Cited by

See all 316

Metadata

Authors
Escobar, G. J., Greene, J. D., Scheirer, P., Gardner, M. N., Draper, D., & Kipnis, P.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2008-03
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
232-239
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135583319
Cited by
316
References
34
FWCI
11.15
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: Risk-Adjusting Hospital Inpatient Mortality Using Automated Inpatient, Outpatient, and Laboratory Databases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/mlr.0b013e3181589bb6
The paper
Escobar, G. J., Greene, J. D., Scheirer, P., Gardner, M. N., Draper, D., & Kipnis, P. (2008). Risk-Adjusting Hospital Inpatient Mortality Using Automated Inpatient, Outpatient, and Laboratory Databases. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0b013e3181589bb6

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.