Cited by 111COVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesMachine Learning in HealthcareSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

Evaluating a Widely Implemented Proprietary Deterioration Index Model among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19

Open access
Singh, Karandeep, Valley, Thomas S., Tang, Shengpu, Li, Benjamin Y., Kamran, Fahad, Sjoding, Michael W., Wiens, Jenna, Otles, Erkin +7 more·2021·Annals of the American Thoracic Society

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Rationale: The Epic Deterioration Index (EDI) is a proprietary prediction model implemented in over 100 U.S. hospitals that was widely used to support medical decision-making during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The EDI has not been independently evaluated, and other proprietary models have been shown to be biased against vulnerable populations. Objectives: To independently evaluate the EDI in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 overall and in disproportionately affected subgroups. Methods: We studied adult patients admitted with COVID-19 to units other than the intensive care unit at a large academic medical center from March 9 through May 20, 2020. We used the EDI, calculated at 15-minute intervals, to predict a composite outcome of intensive care unit–level care, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death. In a subset of patients hospitalized for at least 48 hours, we also evaluated the ability of the EDI to identify patients at low risk of experiencing this composite outcome during their remaining hospitalization. Results: Among 392 COVID-19 hospitalizations meeting inclusion criteria, 103 (26%) met the composite outcome. The median age of the cohort was 64 (interquartile range, 53–75) with 168 (43%) Black patients and 169 (43%) women. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of the EDI was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74–0.84). EDI predictions did not differ by race or sex. When exploring clinically relevant thresholds of the EDI, we found patients who met or exceeded an EDI of 68.8 made up 14% of the study cohort and had a 74% probability of experiencing the composite outcome during their hospitalization with a sensitivity of 39% and a median lead time of 24 hours from when this threshold was first exceeded. Among the 286 patients hospitalized for at least 48 hours who had not experienced the composite outcome, 14 (13%) never exceeded an EDI of 37.9, with a negative predictive value of 90% and a sensitivity above this threshold of 91%. Conclusions: We found the EDI identifies small subsets of high-risk and low-risk patients with COVID-19 with good discrimination, although its clinical use as an early warning system is limited by low sensitivity. These findings highlight the importance of independent evaluation of proprietary models before widespread operational use among patients with COVID-19.

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 · 10.1513/annalsats.202006-698oc

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • Vendors increasingly provide proprietary "turnkey" CDSS solutions for identifying clinical deterioration and sepsis.

    “Vendors increasingly provide proprietary “turnkey” CDSS solutions for identifying clinical deterioration and sepsis [42–44].”

    From Use of artificial intelligence in critical care: opportunities and obstacles (2024) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Methods section (‘The Epic Deterioration Index Model’) describes a proprietary model developed by a healthcare software vendor to detect clinical deterioration, and the Abstract says it is implemented in hundreds of U.S. hospitals. The paper does not establish that vendors are increasingly offering such solutions, or that this model identifies sepsis; it also does not characterize it as ‘turnkey.’ (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Singh 2021 had a high risk of selection bias due to restricting validation to COVID-19 patients.

    “Singh 2021 21 had a high risk of selection bias due to restricting validation to COVID-19 patients.”

    From A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Externally Validated Epic Clinical Decision Support Tools (2026) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Methods (Study Cohort) restrict the cohort to adults hospitalized with COVID-19. The Discussion says thresholds may differ for patients hospitalized with other conditions and calls for broader validation, but it does not assess this restriction as a high risk of selection bias. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • More than a quarter of hospitalized patients in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 required a transfer to an intensive care unit or died.

    “For example, more than a quarter of hospitalized patients in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 required a transfer to an intensive care unit or died.6”

    From Quantification of Sepsis Model Alerts in 24 US Hospitals Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Results report that 103 of 392 hospitalizations (26%) had a composite adverse outcome, and the Methods define that outcome to include ICU-level care or in-hospital death. But the study covered eligible admissions at one Michigan academic medical center from March to May 2020, excluded patients admitted directly to the ICU, and also included mechanical ventilation in the composite. Its 26% figure therefore does not establish the stated rate for hospitalized patients generally or precisely for ICU transfer or death alone. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Earlier predictions provide clinicians with greater lead time for action, ultimately enabling the care team to identify patients who may be entering a risky state with enough time to intervene.

    “Earlier predictions provide clinicians with greater lead time for action24, ultimately enabling the care team to identify patients who may be entering a risky state with enough time to intervene10.”

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. [6]Strickland E AI can help hospitals triage COVID-19 patients IEEE Spectrum 2020 [updated 2020 Apr 21; accessed 2020 May 1]. Available from: https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/artificial-intelligence/medical-ai/ai-can-help-hospitals-triage-covid19-patients

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singh, K., Valley, T. S., Tang, S., Li, B. Y., Kamran, F., Sjoding, M. W., Wiens, J., Otles, E., Donnelly, J. P., Wei, M. Y., McBride, J. P., Cao, J., Penoza, C., Ayanian, J. Z., & Nallamothu, B. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan College of Engineering, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and
  • Michigan Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Singh, Karandeep
Venue
Annals of the American Thoracic Society
Published
2021-07-01
Volume
18
Issue
7
Pages
1129-1137
ISSN
  • 2325-6621 (ISSN-L)
  • 2329-6933
OpenAlex
W3114626119
Cited by
111
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of the American Thoracic Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Michigan Institute for Data Science, University of Michigan
  • National Institute on Aging (K23AG056638)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K01HL136687, L30 HL133988, K23HL140165, K12HL138039)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007863)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM013325)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, model evaluation, early warning systems, hospitalized patients, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, in-hospital mortality, racial and sex disparities, model discrimination, model bias, clinical decision support, health equity, Black patients, women, vulnerable populations

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