Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jul 14.
Published in final edited form as: J Biomed Inform. 2016 Sep 20;64:10–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2016.09.013

Table 3.

Comparison of eCART, NEWS and AAMa scores using validation data.

Performance metric eCART NEWS AAM
Training cutoffb 50 8 7.5
Number of episodesc 168,811
Number of alerts 15,274 13,129 15,288
  % alerts with events (PPVd) within:
  12 h 7.8% 7.6% 8.4%
  24 h 9.7% 9.8% 10.5%
  Entire hospitalization episode 14.4% 15.2% 16.2%
W:De at:
  12 h 12.7 13.1 11.9
  24 h 10.3 10.2 9.5
  Entire hospitalization episode 6.9 6.6 6.2
Number not alerted 153,537 155,682 153,523
  % of no alerts with no event (NPV) 98.2% 98.0% 98.3%
Number of events 5047
  Sensitivity in prior:
    12 h 23.7% 19.9% 25.4%
    24 h 29.4% 25.6% 31.9%
    Entire hospitalization episode 43.7% 39.5% 48.9%
Number with no event 163,764 163,764 163,764
  Specificity 92.0% 93.2% 92.2%
a

See text for details on the 3 scores (NEWS, National Early Warning Score; eCART, electronic Cardiac Arrest Triage; AAM (Advanced Alert Monitoring). The table indicates specific metrics (left column) when the three scores were applied to hourly retrospective data.

b

Each respective score’s training cutoff was determined so that there would be no more than 1 alert per day in a hospital with an average daily census of ~35 patients. An alert was triggered if the score was greater than the training cutoff.

c

In those instances where the patient was transferred to intensive care more than once, we split the original episode into separate episodes (each time a patient returned to the ward, a new episode began) to fully evaluate episodes that had multiple outcomes.

d

PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.

e

W:D, work-up to detection ratio (also known as number needed to evaluate).