Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Comparison of predictive performance for 30-day mortality between PSI-17 and PSI-20 using univariate, and risk-adjusted multivariable logistic regression models.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

The comparison of ROCs from (A) univariate logistic regression and (B) risk-adjusted multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for 11 risk factors for 30-day mortality.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Calibration plots of mean observed rates versus predicted rates of 30-day mortality for univariate logistic regression on (A and B) and risk-adjusted multivariable logistic regression adjusted for 11 risk factors (C and D). Samples were equally divided into 8 groups, according to their predicted 30-day mortality probability. "Rug plot" below the main figures are histograms showing the number of observations for the corresponding predicted 30-day mortality probability.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

30-day mortality by PORT Class defined by Fine et al. (1997): PORT class II: ≤70; PORT class III: 71–90; PORT class IV: 91–130; PORT class V: >130.

30-day mortality rates for PORT Class I are 1.2% and 1.3% for PSI-17 and PSI-20, respectively. Individual patient PSI scores who survived or died are shown in green or yellow, respectively.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Scatter plot of the components needed for the net reclassification index.

Open circles and crosses indicate alive and death, respectively. Blue symbols mean that PSI-20 improved PSI-17 since it had a higher predicted probability of 30-day mortality for those who died, or a lower predicted probability for those who were alive. Red symbols mean that PSI-20 didn’t improve PSI-17 since it had a lower predicted probability of 30-day mortality for those who died, or a higher predicted probability for those who were alive.

More »

Fig 4 Expand