ArticleJAMA network open2026
Accuracy and Equity of the End-of-Life Care Index in Predicting 1-Year Mortality.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The End-of-Life Care Index (EOLCI) was developed to predict 1-year mortality and improve communication about serious illness at the point of care. The EOLCI is widely available in US hospitals, yet external validation studies have been limited. Objective: To evaluate EOLCI model performance overall and across key patient subgroups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study was performed from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2023, at 39 hospitals in the Trinity Health and Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) health systems. Participants included adults (≥18 years of age) hospitalized for 36 hours or longer. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2024, through July 13, 2026. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was 1-year mortality risk as predicted by the EOLCI using a logistic regression model with inputs including age, sex, insurance, laboratory values, comorbidities, and medications. Model performance was evaluated at a risk threshold of 70% and stratified by health system, based on a use case in a large clinical trial. The evaluation used Scaled Brier Scores (SBS; range -1 to 1) for composite measures of calibration and discrimination, calibration plots, and C statistics. Patient subgroups were defined by age, sex, race and ethnicity, ethnicity alone, Medicaid status, and diagnoses. Results: Among 116 749 Trinity Health patients with 154 063 encounters (median age, 69 [IQR, 56-79] years; 79 448 [51.6%] female across all encounters), 12 054 patients (10.3%) died within 1 year. Among 94 489 KPSC patients with 133 043 encounters (median age, 70 [IQR, 57-80] years; 67 389 [50.7%] female across all encounters), 16 872 patients (17.9%) died within 1 year. The EOLCI SBS across encounters was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.01) at Trinity Health and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.16-0.20) at KPSC, consistent with plots indicating poor calibration in both cohorts. Model discrimination, measured by the C statistic, was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.76-0.77) at Trinity Health and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.81-0.81) at KPSC. Model performance was similar across most subgroups, but worse in the oldest subgroup and some diagnostic subgroups, depending on the health system. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study of hospitalized adults in 2 large US health systems, the EOLCI showed moderate to high discrimination but poor calibration, with reasonably equitable performance across many sociodemographic characteristics and diagnoses. These findings may inform potential opportunities and limitations for using the EOLCI in clinical settings and serve as benchmarks for health systems developing local mortality risk models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.