• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Evaluating equity in performance of an electronic health record-based 6-month mortality risk model to trigger palliative care consultation: a retrospective model validation analysis.评估基于电子健康记录的 6 个月死亡率风险模型在触发姑息治疗咨询方面的表现公平性:回顾性模型验证分析。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2023 Sep;32(9):503-516. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015173. Epub 2023 Mar 31.
2
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
3
Racial and Ethnic Bias in Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer Recurrence When Race and Ethnicity Are Omitted as Predictors.当种族和民族被排除在预测因素之外时,结直肠癌复发风险预测模型中的种族和民族偏见。
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Jun 1;6(6):e2318495. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.18495.
4
Racial Inequities in Palliative Referral for Children with High-Intensity Neurologic Impairment.种族不平等与高度神经损伤儿童的姑息治疗转诊。
J Pediatr. 2024 May;268:113930. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2024.113930. Epub 2024 Feb 1.
5
Evaluating Algorithmic Bias in 30-Day Hospital Readmission Models: Retrospective Analysis.评估 30 天内医院再入院模型中的算法偏差:回顾性分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Apr 18;26:e47125. doi: 10.2196/47125.
6
Does the Stopping Opioids After Surgery Score Perform Well Among Racial and Socioeconomic Subgroups?手术后停用阿片类药物评分在不同种族和社会经济亚组中的表现如何?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023 Dec 1;481(12):2343-2351. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002697. Epub 2023 May 9.
7
No Differences Between White and Non-White Patients in Terms of Care Quality Metrics, Complications, and Death After Hip Fracture Surgery When Standardized Care Pathways Are Used.在使用标准化护理路径的情况下,白人患者和非白人患者在护理质量指标、并发症和髋部骨折手术后的死亡率方面没有差异。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023 Feb 1;481(2):324-335. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002142. Epub 2022 Mar 1.
8
How Does the Skeletal Oncology Research Group Algorithm's Prediction of 5-year Survival in Patients with Chondrosarcoma Perform on International Validation?骨肿瘤研究组算法对软骨肉瘤患者 5 年生存率的预测在国际验证中的表现如何?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Oct;478(10):2300-2308. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001305.
9
Race as a Predictor of Palliative Care Referral Time, Hospice Utilization, and Hospital Length of Stay: A Retrospective Noncomparative Analysis.种族作为姑息治疗转诊时间、临终关怀利用情况和住院时间的预测因素:一项回顾性非对比分析。
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018 Jan;35(1):110-116. doi: 10.1177/1049909116686733. Epub 2017 Jan 5.
10
Electronic Health Record Mortality Prediction Model for Targeted Palliative Care Among Hospitalized Medical Patients: a Pilot Quasi-experimental Study.电子健康记录在院医疗患者目标性姑息治疗死亡率预测模型:一项试点类实验研究。
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Sep;34(9):1841-1847. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05169-2. Epub 2019 Jul 16.

引用本文的文献

1
External validation of a proprietary risk model for 1-year mortality in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years or older.针对65岁及以上社区居住成年人1年死亡率的专有风险模型的外部验证。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2025 Jul 1;32(7):1110-1119. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaf062.
2
Assessing Algorithm Fairness Requires Adjustment for Risk Distribution Differences: Re-Considering the Equal Opportunity Criterion.评估算法公平性需要对风险分布差异进行调整:重新审视平等机会准则。
medRxiv. 2025 Feb 2:2025.01.31.25321489. doi: 10.1101/2025.01.31.25321489.
3
Exploring the economic occupational health, safety, and fatal accidents in high-risk industries.探索高危行业中的经济职业健康、安全及致命事故。
BMC Public Health. 2025 Feb 3;25(1):433. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-21583-0.

本文引用的文献

1
Dying Poor in the US-Disparities in End-of-Life Care.在美国贫困中离世——临终关怀中的差异。
JAMA Health Forum. 2020 Dec;1(12). doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.1533. Epub 2020 Dec 10.
2
Framework for Integrating Equity Into Machine Learning Models: A Case Study.将公平性融入机器学习模型的框架:一个案例研究。
Chest. 2022 Jun;161(6):1621-1627. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.02.001. Epub 2022 Feb 7.
3
Negative Patient Descriptors: Documenting Racial Bias In The Electronic Health Record.负面患者描述:电子健康记录中的种族偏见问题。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2022 Feb;41(2):203-211. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01423. Epub 2022 Jan 19.
4
Advancing health equity with artificial intelligence.利用人工智能推进健康公平。
J Public Health Policy. 2021 Dec;42(4):602-611. doi: 10.1057/s41271-021-00319-5. Epub 2021 Nov 22.
5
Ethical Machine Learning in Healthcare.医疗保健中的伦理机器学习。
Annu Rev Biomed Data Sci. 2021 Jul;4:123-144. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-092820-114757. Epub 2021 May 6.
6
Structural Intersectionality as a New Direction for Health Disparities Research.结构交叉性作为健康不平等研究的新方向。
J Health Soc Behav. 2021 Sep;62(3):350-370. doi: 10.1177/00221465211032947. Epub 2021 Aug 6.
7
Dealing With Death as an Outcome in Supportive Care Clinical Trials.在支持性护理临床试验中应对死亡这一结果。
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Jul 1;181(7):895-896. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.1816.
8
Equity in essence: a call for operationalising fairness in machine learning for healthcare.公平的本质:呼吁在医疗保健机器学习中实现公平性操作化。
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2021 Apr;28(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2020-100289.
9
How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals.医学人工智能设备的评估方式:基于对美国食品药品监督管理局批准情况分析的局限性与建议
Nat Med. 2021 Apr;27(4):582-584. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01312-x.
10
Challenging racism in the use of health data.挑战健康数据使用中的种族主义问题。
Lancet Digit Health. 2021 Mar;3(3):e144-e146. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00019-4. Epub 2021 Feb 3.

评估基于电子健康记录的 6 个月死亡率风险模型在触发姑息治疗咨询方面的表现公平性:回顾性模型验证分析。

Evaluating equity in performance of an electronic health record-based 6-month mortality risk model to trigger palliative care consultation: a retrospective model validation analysis.

机构信息

Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology & Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

出版信息

BMJ Qual Saf. 2023 Sep;32(9):503-516. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015173. Epub 2023 Mar 31.

DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015173
PMID:37001995
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10898860/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate predictive performance of an electronic health record (EHR)-based, inpatient 6-month mortality risk model developed to trigger palliative care consultation among patient groups stratified by age, race, ethnicity, insurance and socioeconomic status (SES), which may vary due to social forces (eg, racism) that shape health, healthcare and health data.

DESIGN

Retrospective evaluation of prediction model.

SETTING

Three urban hospitals within a single health system.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients ≥18 years admitted between 1 January and 31 December 2017, excluding observation, obstetric, rehabilitation and hospice (n=58 464 encounters, 41 327 patients).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

General performance metrics (c-statistic, integrated calibration index (ICI), Brier Score) and additional measures relevant to health equity (accuracy, false positive rate (FPR), false negative rate (FNR)).

RESULTS

For black versus non-Hispanic white patients, the model's accuracy was higher (0.051, 95% CI 0.044 to 0.059), FPR lower (-0.060, 95% CI -0.067 to -0.052) and FNR higher (0.049, 95% CI 0.023 to 0.078). A similar pattern was observed among patients who were Hispanic, younger, with Medicaid/missing insurance, or living in low SES zip codes. No consistent differences emerged in c-statistic, ICI or Brier Score. Younger age had the second-largest effect size in the mortality prediction model, and there were large standardised group differences in age (eg, 0.32 for non-Hispanic white versus black patients), suggesting age may contribute to systematic differences in the predicted probabilities between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

An EHR-based mortality risk model was less likely to identify some marginalised patients as potentially benefiting from palliative care, with younger age pinpointed as a possible mechanism. Evaluating predictive performance is a critical preliminary step in addressing algorithmic inequities in healthcare, which must also include evaluating clinical impact, and governance and regulatory structures for oversight, monitoring and accountability.

摘要

目的

评估一种基于电子健康记录(EHR)的住院患者 6 个月死亡率风险模型的预测性能,该模型旨在根据年龄、种族、族裔、保险和社会经济状况(SES)对患者群体进行分层,触发姑息治疗咨询,这些分层可能因社会力量(例如种族主义)而有所不同,这些社会力量会影响健康、医疗保健和健康数据。

设计

预测模型的回顾性评估。

设置

单一医疗系统内的 3 家城市医院。

参与者

2017 年 1 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日期间入住的所有年龄≥18 岁的患者,排除观察、产科、康复和临终关怀(n=58464 次就诊,41327 名患者)。

主要观察指标

一般性能指标(c 统计量、综合校准指数(ICI)、Brier 评分)和与健康公平相关的其他指标(准确性、假阳性率(FPR)、假阴性率(FNR))。

结果

对于黑人和非西班牙裔白人患者,该模型的准确性更高(0.051,95%置信区间 0.044 至 0.059),FPR 更低(-0.060,95%置信区间-0.067 至-0.052),FNR 更高(0.049,95%置信区间 0.023 至 0.078)。在西班牙裔、年龄较小、拥有医疗补助/无保险或居住在 SES 较低邮政编码的患者中也观察到类似的模式。c 统计量、ICI 或 Brier 评分没有一致的差异。年龄是死亡率预测模型中第二大影响因素,并且年龄的组间差异很大(例如,非西班牙裔白人和黑人患者之间为 0.32),这表明年龄可能导致群体间预测概率存在系统差异。

结论

基于 EHR 的死亡率风险模型不太可能识别出一些边缘患者可能受益于姑息治疗,而年龄较小则可能是一个潜在的机制。评估预测性能是解决医疗保健中算法不公平问题的关键初步步骤,还必须包括评估临床影响,以及治理和监管结构,以进行监督、监测和问责。