SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Improved prediction of 5-year mortality by updating the chronic related score for risk profiling in the general population: lessons from the italian region of Lombardy.

Front Public Health · 2023-08-30

DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1173957PMID: 37711243

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to improve the performance of the Chronic Related Score (CReSc) in predicting mortality and healthcare needs in the general population.MethodsA population-based study was conducted, including all beneficiaries of the Regional Health Service of Lombardy, Italy, aged 18 years or older in January 2015. Each individual was classified as exposed or unexposed to 69 candidate predictors measured before baseline, updated to include four mental health disorders. Conditions independently associated with 5-year mortality were selected using the Cox regression model on a random sample including 5.4 million citizens. The predictive performance of the obtained CReSc-2.0 was assessed on the remaining 2.7 million citizens through discrimination and calibration.ResultsA total of 35 conditions significantly contributed to the CReSc-2.0, among which Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, dementia, heart failure, active neoplasm, and kidney dialysis contributed the most to the score. Approximately 36% of citizens suffered from at least one condition. CReSc-2.0 discrimination performance was remarkable, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83. Trends toward increasing short-term (1-year) and long-term (5-year) rates of mortality, hospital admission, hospital stay, and healthcare costs were observed as CReSc-2.0 increased.ConclusionCReSC-2.0 represents an improved tool for stratifying populations according to healthcare needs.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.