Life Expectancy Predictions for Older Diabetic Patients as Estimated by Physicians and a Prognostic Model.

IF 1.7
MDM policy & practice Pub Date : 2017-06-03 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1177/2381468317713718
Claire E O'Hanlon, Jennifer M Cooper, Sang Mee Lee, Priya John, Matthew Churpek, Marshall H Chin, Elbert S Huang
{"title":"Life Expectancy Predictions for Older Diabetic Patients as Estimated by Physicians and a Prognostic Model.","authors":"Claire E O'Hanlon,&nbsp;Jennifer M Cooper,&nbsp;Sang Mee Lee,&nbsp;Priya John,&nbsp;Matthew Churpek,&nbsp;Marshall H Chin,&nbsp;Elbert S Huang","doi":"10.1177/2381468317713718","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Multiple medical organizations recommend using life expectancy (LE) to individualize diabetes care goals. We compare the performance of patient LE predictions made by physicians to LE predictions from a simulation model (the Chicago model) in a cohort of older diabetic patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study of a convenience sample (n = 447) of diabetes patients over 65 years and their physicians. <b>Measurements:</b> Physicians provided LE estimates for individual patients during a baseline survey (2000-2003). The prognostic model included a comprehensive geriatric type 2 diabetes simulation model (the Chicago model) and combinations of the physician estimate and the Chicago model (\"And,\" \"Or,\" and \"Average\" models). Observed survival was determined based on the National Death Index through 31 December 2010. The predictive accuracy of LE predictions was assessed using c-statistic for 5-year mortality; Harrell's c-statistic, and Integrated Brier score for overall survival. <b>Results:</b> The patient cohort had a mean (SD) age of 73.4 (5.9) years. The majority were female (62.6%) and black (79.4%). At 5 years, 108 (24.2%) patients had died. The c-statistic for 5-year mortality was similar for physicians (0.69) and the Chicago model (0.68), while the average of estimates by physicians and Chicago model yielded the highest c-statistic of any method tested (0.73). The estimates of overall survival yielded a similar pattern of results. <b>Limitations:</b> Generalizability of patient cohort and lack of updated model parameters. <b>Conclusions:</b> Compared with individual methods, the average of LE estimates by physicians and the Chicago model had the best predictive performance. Prognostic models, such as the Chicago model, may complement and support physicians' intuitions as they consider treatment decisions and goals for older patients with chronic conditions like diabetes.</p>","PeriodicalId":520707,"journal":{"name":"MDM policy & practice","volume":" ","pages":"2381468317713718"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2381468317713718","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM policy & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468317713718","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Multiple medical organizations recommend using life expectancy (LE) to individualize diabetes care goals. We compare the performance of patient LE predictions made by physicians to LE predictions from a simulation model (the Chicago model) in a cohort of older diabetic patients.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of a convenience sample (n = 447) of diabetes patients over 65 years and their physicians. Measurements: Physicians provided LE estimates for individual patients during a baseline survey (2000-2003). The prognostic model included a comprehensive geriatric type 2 diabetes simulation model (the Chicago model) and combinations of the physician estimate and the Chicago model ("And," "Or," and "Average" models). Observed survival was determined based on the National Death Index through 31 December 2010. The predictive accuracy of LE predictions was assessed using c-statistic for 5-year mortality; Harrell's c-statistic, and Integrated Brier score for overall survival. Results: The patient cohort had a mean (SD) age of 73.4 (5.9) years. The majority were female (62.6%) and black (79.4%). At 5 years, 108 (24.2%) patients had died. The c-statistic for 5-year mortality was similar for physicians (0.69) and the Chicago model (0.68), while the average of estimates by physicians and Chicago model yielded the highest c-statistic of any method tested (0.73). The estimates of overall survival yielded a similar pattern of results. Limitations: Generalizability of patient cohort and lack of updated model parameters. Conclusions: Compared with individual methods, the average of LE estimates by physicians and the Chicago model had the best predictive performance. Prognostic models, such as the Chicago model, may complement and support physicians' intuitions as they consider treatment decisions and goals for older patients with chronic conditions like diabetes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

由医生和预后模型估计的老年糖尿病患者预期寿命预测。
背景:多个医疗机构推荐使用预期寿命(LE)来个性化糖尿病护理目标。在老年糖尿病患者队列中,我们比较了医生对患者LE预测的表现与模拟模型(芝加哥模型)对患者LE预测的表现。设计:对65岁以上的糖尿病患者及其医生进行回顾性队列研究(n = 447)。测量方法:在基线调查(2000-2003)期间,医生提供了个体患者的LE估计。预后模型包括一个综合的老年2型糖尿病模拟模型(芝加哥模型),以及医生估计和芝加哥模型(“和”、“或”和“平均”模型)的组合。观察到的生存是根据截至2010年12月31日的国家死亡指数确定的。使用5年死亡率的c统计量评估LE预测的预测准确性;Harrell的c-统计值,综合Brier评分的总生存率。结果:患者队列的平均(SD)年龄为73.4(5.9)岁。大多数是女性(62.6%)和黑人(79.4%)。5年时,108例(24.2%)患者死亡。5年死亡率的c统计量对于医生(0.69)和芝加哥模型(0.68)是相似的,而医生和芝加哥模型估计的平均c统计量是所有测试方法中最高的(0.73)。对总生存率的估计也产生了类似的结果。局限性:患者队列的通用性和缺乏更新的模型参数。结论:与单独的方法相比,医师估计的LE平均值和芝加哥模型具有最佳的预测性能。预后模型,如芝加哥模型,可以补充和支持医生的直觉,因为他们考虑治疗决策和目标的老年慢性疾病患者,如糖尿病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信