Multicenter validation of PIM3 and PIM2 in Brazilian pediatric intensive care units

ObjectiveTo validate the PIM3 score in Brazilian PICUs and compare its performance with the PIM2.MethodsObservational, retrospective, multicenter study, including patients younger than 16 years old admitted consecutively from October 2013 to September 2019. We assessed the Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR), the discrimination capability (using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve – AUROC), and the calibration. To assess the calibration, we used the calibration belt, which is a curve that represents the correlation of predicted and observed values and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) through all the risk ranges. We also analyzed the performance of both scores in three periods: 2013–2015, 2015–2017, and 2017–2019.Results41,541 patients from 22 PICUs were included. Most patients aged less than 24 months (58.4%) and were admitted for medical conditions (88.6%) (respiratory conditions = 53.8%). Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 5.8%. The median PICU length of stay was three days (IQR, 2–5), and the observed mortality was 1.8% (763 deaths). The predicted mortality by PIM3 was 1.8% (SMR 1.00; 95% CI 0.94–1.08) and by PIM2 was 2.1% (SMR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83–0.96). Both scores had good discrimination (PIM3 AUROC = 0.88 and PIM2 AUROC = 0.89). In calibration analysis, both scores overestimated mortality in the 0%–3% risk range, PIM3 tended to underestimate mortality in medium-risk patients (9%–46% risk range), and PIM2 also overestimated mortality in high-risk patients (70%–100% mortality risk).ConclusionsBoth scores had a good discrimination ability but poor calibration in different ranges, which deteriorated over time in the population studied

Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil: setting the baseline knowledge on the animal diversity in Brazil

The limited temporal completeness and taxonomic accuracy of species lists, made available in a traditional manner in scientific publications, has always represented a problem. These lists are invariably limited to a few taxonomic groups and do not represent up-to-date knowledge of all species and classifications. In this context, the Brazilian megadiverse fauna is no exception, and the Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil (CTFB) (http://fauna.jbrj.gov.br/), made public in 2015, represents a database on biodiversity anchored on a list of valid and expertly recognized scientific names of animals in Brazil. The CTFB is updated in near real time by a team of more than 800 specialists. By January 1, 2024, the CTFB compiled 133,691 nominal species, with 125,138 that were considered valid. Most of the valid species were arthropods (82.3%, with more than 102,000 species) and chordates (7.69%, with over 11,000 species). These taxa were followed by a cluster composed of Mollusca (3,567 species), Platyhelminthes (2,292 species), Annelida (1,833 species), and Nematoda (1,447 species). All remaining groups had less than 1,000 species reported in Brazil, with Cnidaria (831 species), Porifera (628 species), Rotifera (606 species), and Bryozoa (520 species) representing those with more than 500 species. Analysis of the CTFB database can facilitate and direct efforts towards the discovery of new species in Brazil, but it is also fundamental in providing the best available list of valid nominal species to users, including those in science, health, conservation efforts, and any initiative involving animals. The importance of the CTFB is evidenced by the elevated number of citations in the scientific literature in diverse areas of biology, law, anthropology, education, forensic science, and veterinary science, among others

Datasheet1_Multicenter validation of PIM3 and PIM2 in Brazilian pediatric intensive care units.pdf

ObjectiveTo validate the PIM3 score in Brazilian PICUs and compare its performance with the PIM2.MethodsObservational, retrospective, multicenter study, including patients younger than 16 years old admitted consecutively from October 2013 to September 2019. We assessed the Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR), the discrimination capability (using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve – AUROC), and the calibration. To assess the calibration, we used the calibration belt, which is a curve that represents the correlation of predicted and observed values and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) through all the risk ranges. We also analyzed the performance of both scores in three periods: 2013–2015, 2015–2017, and 2017–2019.Results41,541 patients from 22 PICUs were included. Most patients aged less than 24 months (58.4%) and were admitted for medical conditions (88.6%) (respiratory conditions = 53.8%). Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 5.8%. The median PICU length of stay was three days (IQR, 2–5), and the observed mortality was 1.8% (763 deaths). The predicted mortality by PIM3 was 1.8% (SMR 1.00; 95% CI 0.94–1.08) and by PIM2 was 2.1% (SMR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83–0.96). Both scores had good discrimination (PIM3 AUROC = 0.88 and PIM2 AUROC = 0.89). In calibration analysis, both scores overestimated mortality in the 0%–3% risk range, PIM3 tended to underestimate mortality in medium-risk patients (9%–46% risk range), and PIM2 also overestimated mortality in high-risk patients (70%–100% mortality risk).ConclusionsBoth scores had a good discrimination ability but poor calibration in different ranges, which deteriorated over time in the population studied.</p