Evidence Hub

Dynamically monitoring pneumonia severity scores to predict the prognosis in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: an international, multicenter cohort study

Jin-Liang Liu, Zhiyang Xu, Guo-Qing Qian, Tadashi Ishida, T. Hirai, Isao Ito, Chao Liu, Xue-Jie Wu et al.

Respiratory Medicine, 2025

2,052 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Traditional pneumonia severity scores are widely used at treatment initiation to stratify disease severity and predict prognosis. Although they can be reassessed during treatment to evaluate disease progression, their predictive accuracy remains suboptimal. To address this limitation, we introduce a novel machine learning algorithm that quantifies continuous disease progression, enhancing real-time evaluation of treatment efficacy and outcome prediction in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

METHODS

We analyzed 2052 CAP patients from China and 1862 from Japan. CURB-65 and pneumonia severity index (PSI) scores were recorded at admission and 72 h post-treatment. To quantify disease progression, we developed a new algorithm, Mortality Vector Optimization (MVO), which measures the similarity between a patient's condition and critical states within severity scoring systems. Model discrimination was assessed using the C-index and AUC, while calibration was evaluated with Brier scores. External validation was conducted using the GOSSIS-1-eICU and SCRIPT CarpeDiem datasets.

RESULTS

MVO demonstrated superior predictive performance compared to nine established machine learning models. In the derivation cohort, MVO achieved a C-index of 0.734 and AUC of 0.825 for PSI, while in the GOSSIS-1-eICU dataset, it reached a C-index of 0.850 and AUC of 0.870. The trend score derived from MVO effectively captured disease progression, with hazard ratios of 2.63 (for CURB-65) and 2.50…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,052 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free