Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 3 complete abstracts (1,112 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
A vital statistic measuring or recording the rate of death from any cause in hospitalized populations.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Mortality, In-Hospital; In-Hospital Mortalities; Mortalities, In-Hospital; In-Hospital Mortality; Mortality, Hospital; Mortalities, Hospital; Inhospital Mortality; Mortality, Inhospital.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Mortality
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 60,577 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Hospital Mortality” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 20,950 of them (34.6%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 26,186 records.
Reviews account for 3,283 records (5.4%) and meta-analyses for 1,430. Randomized controlled trials number 1,278 (2.1%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 2,865 |
| 2000-2009 | 10,576 |
| 2010-2019 | 26,186 |
| 2020 onward | 20,950 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 3,283 | 5.4% |
| Meta-analyses | 1,430 | 2.4% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 1,278 | 2.1% |
Method: PubMed query "Hospital Mortality"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.
Reading the evidence in clinical research
Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic Codes in AI Prediction Models and Label Leakage of Same-Admission Clinical Outcomes | 2025 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 10 | cc by PMID 41632159 · DOI · PMC12743287 |
| Association between HALP score and in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients: a multicenter retrospective cohort study with external validation | 2025 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 6 | cc by PMID 41602009 · DOI · PMC12832424 |
| Geriatric Syndromes and Mortality Among Hospitalized Older Adults | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 6 | cc by PMID 41591773 · DOI · PMC12848630 |
Diagnostic Codes in AI Prediction Models and Label Leakage of Same-Admission Clinical Outcomes [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ImportanceArtificial intelligence models that predict same-admission outcomes for hospitalized patients, such as inpatient mortality, often rely on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic codes, even when these codes are not finalized until after discharge.
- Closing excerpt
- Addressing this challenge is essential for advancing trustworthy artificial intelligence in health care.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (431 words)
ImportanceArtificial intelligence models that predict same-admission outcomes for hospitalized patients, such as inpatient mortality, often rely on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic codes, even when these codes are not finalized until after discharge.ObjectiveTo investigate the extent to which the inclusion of ICD codes as features in predictive models are associated with inflated performance metrics via label leakage (eg, including the code for cardiac arrest into an inpatient mortality prediction model) and assess the prevalence and implications of this practice in existing literature.Design, setting, and participantsThis prognostic study examined publicly available, deidentified inpatient electronic health record data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database. Patients admitted to an intensive care unit or emergency department at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2019, were included. These data were analyzed between December 18, 2024, and January 14, 2025. A targeted literature review of same-admission prediction models using MIMIC with ICD codes as features was performed between November 20 and 27, 2024.Main outcome and measuresUsing a standard training-validation-test split procedure, prediction models were developed for inpatient mortality (logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost) using only ICD codes as features. Performance in the test set was analyzed using areas under the receiver operating curve and variable importance. Frequencies of studies using same-admission prediction models using MIMIC with ICD codes were calculated from the targeted literature review.ResultsThe study cohort consisted of 180 640 patients (mean [SD] age at admission, 58.7 [19.2] years; 53.0% female), of whom 8573 (4.7%) died during the admission. The models using ICD codes predicted in-hospital mortality with high performance in the test dataset, with areas under the receiver operating curve of 0.976 (95% CI, 0.973-0.980) (logistic regression), 0.971 (95% CI, 0.967-0.974) (random forest), and 0.973 (95% CI, 0.968-0.977) (XGBoost). The most important ICD codes were subdural hemorrhage (OR, 389.99; 95% CI, 28.79-5283.59), cardiac arrest (OR, 219.58; 95% CI, 159.61-302.08), brain death (OR, 112.78; 95% CI, 13.42-947.70), and encounter for palliative care (OR, 98.04; 95% CI, 83.16-115.58). The literature review found that 37 of 92 studies (40.2%) using MIMIC to predict same-admission outcomes included ICD codes as features, even though both MIMIC publications and documentation clearly state that ICD codes are derived after discharge.Conclusions and relevanceThis prognostic study of the MIMIC-IV database suggests that using ICD codes as features in same-admission prediction models may be a severe methodological flaw associated with inflated performance metrics, rendering models incapable of clinically useful predictions. The literature review found that the practice is common. Addressing this challenge is essential for advancing trustworthy artificial intelligence in health care.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41632159 · DOI · PMC12743287
Association between HALP score and in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients: a multicenter retrospective cohort study with external validation [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundThe HALP (Hemoglobin, Albumin, Lymphocyte, and Platelet) score integrates key parameters reflecting nutritional and immune status.
- Closing excerpt
- Its simplicity and reliance on routine laboratory parameters support potential clinical application in sepsis risk stratification.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (286 words)
BackgroundThe HALP (Hemoglobin, Albumin, Lymphocyte, and Platelet) score integrates key parameters reflecting nutritional and immune status. However, its prognostic value for in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients remains underexplored.ObjectiveTo investigate the association between HALP score and in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients using two large critical care databases.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study including adult patients with Sepsis-3 from the eICU Collaborative Research Database (derivation cohort, n = 12,899) and the MIMIC-IV database (validation cohort, n = 3,726). HALP was calculated as (hemoglobin × albumin × lymphocyte count)/platelet count, using first available values upon ICU admission. Restricted cubic spline (RCS) models assessed nonlinear relationships between HALP and mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox regression models, adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, laboratory values, and Acute Physiology Score III, evaluated survival differences between low- and high-HALP groups. Segmented Cox regression examined associations below and above RCS-derived thresholds.ResultsA total of 16,625 patients were analyzed. RCS analysis demonstrated significant nonlinear associations between HALP and in-hospital mortality in both cohorts (overall P P P = 0.002 in MIMIC-IV), with an inflection point near 12.45. Below this threshold, each unit increase in HALP was associated with a 3% reduction in mortality risk (eICU: HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99, P = 0.002; MIMIC-IV: HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-0.99, P = 0.008). Kaplan-Meier analyses showed significantly higher survival in the high HALP group (eICU: log-rank P = 0.005, HR 0.882, 95% CI 0.808-0.962; MIMIC-IV: log-rank P P = 0.017; MIMIC-IV: HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.98, P = 0.028).ConclusionThe HALP score demonstrates robust prognostic value for predicting in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients, with consistent nonlinear relationships validated across two large databases. Its simplicity and reliance on routine laboratory parameters support potential clinical application in sepsis risk stratification.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41602009 · DOI · PMC12832424
Geriatric Syndromes and Mortality Among Hospitalized Older Adults [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ImportanceGeriatric syndromes are common in hospitalized older adults and complicate acute care; however, their overall prevalence and cumulative burden remain poorly understood, especially in resource-limited settings.
- Closing excerpt
- Multidomain assessments should be integrated into standard hospital care to identify and address vulnerabilities that commonly affect older adults with acute illness.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (395 words)
ImportanceGeriatric syndromes are common in hospitalized older adults and complicate acute care; however, their overall prevalence and cumulative burden remain poorly understood, especially in resource-limited settings.ObjectivesTo measure the prevalence of geriatric syndromes upon hospital admission and examine the independent association between the number of geriatric syndromes and 90-day mortality.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the Creating a Hospital Assessment Network in Geriatrics (CHANGE) study, a multicenter, prospective cohort of 43 hospitals, including 38 in Brazil, 1 in Angola, 1 in Chile, 2 in Colombia, and 1 in Portugal. Consecutive patients aged 65 years or older admitted under geriatric teams between June 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023, were enrolled within 48 hours; patients with terminally illness were excluded. Data were analyzed from February 1 to November 23, 2025.ExposureA standardized comprehensive geriatric assessment captured 14 geriatric syndromes: loneliness, dementia, depressive symptoms, sensory impairment, disability, immobility, incontinence, falls, frailty, malnutrition, pressure ulcers, polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications, and delirium. The exposure of interest was the within-patient count of syndromes.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, ascertained by masked telephone follow-up with verification in medical records or public registries. Prespecified mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards regression were performed.ResultsThe study included 2556 participants (mean [SD] age, 79 [9] years, 1437 female [56.2%]). The median number of geriatric syndromes was 5 (IQR, 3-8). The highest prevalence rates for syndromes were 70.8% (95% CI, 69.1%-72.6%) for disability, 61.7% (95% CI, 59.8%-63.6%) for polypharmacy, 58.2% (95% CI, 56.3%-60.1%) for frailty, and 54.7% (95% CI, 52.8%-56.7%) for sensory impairment. Across categories, the mortality rate rose from 8.4% (95% CI, 6.2%-11.4%) for 0 to 2 syndromes to 12.7% (95% CI, 10.1%-15.7%) for 3 to 4 syndromes, 25.4% (95% CI, 22.2%-29.1%) for 5 to 6 syndromes, 30.4% (95% CI, 26.7%-34.5%) for 7 to 8 syndromes, 39.5% (95% CI, 34.4%-44.8%) for 9 to 10 syndromes, and 47.0% (95% CI, 36.4%-57.9%) for 11 or more syndromes. After adjusting for confounders, each additional geriatric syndrome was associated with an increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.15-1.30), which became increasingly pronounced in older age groups.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that hospitalized older adults had a median of 5 geriatric syndromes, which were independently and incrementally associated with 90-day mortality. Multidomain assessments should be integrated into standard hospital care to identify and address vulnerabilities that commonly affect older adults with acute illness.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41591773 · DOI · PMC12848630
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) [4]
- Research article Persistent inflammation and immunosuppression: a common syndrome and new horizon for surgical intensive care [5]
- Research article The impact of frailty on intensive care unit outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
- Research article Rapid Response Teams: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [7]
- Research article Predictors of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis [8]
- Research article Meta-analysis of the association between preoperative anaemia and mortality after surgery [9]
References
- Ramadan B, Liu MC, Burkhart MC, Parker WF, Beaulieu-Jones BK. Diagnostic Codes in AI Prediction Models and Label Leakage of Same-Admission Clinical Outcomes. . 2025. PMID 41632159 · DOI · PMC12743287
- Lv X, Liu X, Shen Y, Li C, Shen T, Wang Y, et al.. Association between HALP score and in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients: a multicenter retrospective cohort study with external validation. . 2025. PMID 41602009 · DOI · PMC12832424
- Avelino-Silva TJ, Roma MFB, Dutra AF, Malheiro A, Speranza ACC, Casale AMC, et al.. Geriatric Syndromes and Mortality Among Hospitalized Older Adults. . 2026. PMID 41591773 · DOI · PMC12848630
- Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, Brunkhorst FM, Rea TD, Scherag A, et al.. Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016. PMID 26903335 · DOI · PMC5433435
- Gentile LF, Cuenca AG, Efron PA, Ang D, Bihorac A, McKinley BA, et al.. Persistent inflammation and immunosuppression: a common syndrome and new horizon for surgical intensive care. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012. PMID 22695412 · DOI · PMC3705923
- Muscedere J, Waters B, Varambally A, Bagshaw SM, Boyd JG, Maslove D, et al.. The impact of frailty on intensive care unit outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2017. PMID 28676896 · DOI · PMC5501903
- Chan PS, Jain R, Nallmothu BK, Berg RA, Sasson C. Rapid Response Teams: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2010. PMID 20065195 · DOI
- Tian W, Jiang W, Yao J, Nicholson CJ, Li RH, Sigurslid HH, et al.. Predictors of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020. PMID 32441789 · DOI · PMC7280666
- Fowler AJ, Ahmad T, Phull MK, Allard S, Gillies MA, Pearse RM. Meta-analysis of the association between preoperative anaemia and mortality after surgery. Br J Surg. 2015. PMID 26349842 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-29.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.