Background Scores can assess the severity and course of disease and predict outcome in an objective manner. This information is needed for proper risk assessment and stratification. Furthermore, scoring systems support optimal patient care, resource management and are gaining in importance in terms of artificial intelligence. Objective This study evaluated and compared the prognostic ability of various common pediatric scoring systems (PRISM, PRISM III, PRISM IV, PIM, PIM2, PIM3, PELOD, PELOD 2) in order to determine which is the most applicable score for pediatric sepsis patients in terms of timing of disease survey and insensitivity to missing data. Methods We retrospectively examined data from 398 patients under 18 years of age, who were diagnosed with sepsis. Scores were assessed at ICU admission and re-evaluated on the day of peak C-reactive protein. The scores were compared for their ability to predict mortality in this specific patient population and for their impairment due to missing data. Results PIM (AUC 0.76 (0.68–0.76)), PIM2 (AUC 0.78 (0.72–0.78)) and PIM3 (AUC 0.76 (0.68–0.76)) scores together with PRSIM III (AUC 0.75 (0.68–0.75)) and PELOD 2 (AUC 0.75 (0.66–0.75)) are the most suitable scores for determining patient prognosis at ICU admission. Once sepsis is pronounced, PELOD 2 (AUC 0.84 (0.77–0.91)) and PRISM IV (AUC 0.8 (0.72–0.88)) become significantly better in their performance and count among the best prognostic scores for use at this time together with PRISM III (AUC 0.81 (0.73–0.89)). PELOD 2 is good for monitoring and, like the PIM scores, is also largely insensitive to missing values. Conclusion Overall, PIM scores show comparatively good performance, are stable as far as timing of the disease survey is concerned, and they are also relatively stable in terms of missing parameters. PELOD 2 is best suitable for monitoring clinical course.

No abstract

Thousands of advanced modeling tools have been developed for design and planning environments. Computer procedures and engineers work together in a comprehensive system where advanced tools are available for communication between procedures and humans. In recent years these software tools are continuously getting into the every day work of engineers. This paper focuses on the relations amongst the most important modeling procedures for mechanical engineers. The paper is organized as follows. First, the main groups of modeling activities are characterized from the point of view of concurrence and actual problems are outlined. Following this, the possible role of collaborative engineering methods is emphasized. Then an approach to concurrent modeling in a collaborative environment is proposed. Finally, the most important future development areas are concluded.

No abstract