Prognostic Language and Subsequent Code-Status Limitation After Acute Brain Injury: A Multidatabase Observational Study
- 1Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Abstract
PurposePrognostic assessments after acute brain injury are largely narrative, and how prognostic language relates to subsequent care has not been measured at scale. We quantified where it is written and its association with a subsequent code-status limitation.
Materials and MethodsMultidatabase observational study of adults with acute brain injury or a related neurologic emergency, using MIMIC-IV (2008-2019; discharge summaries and radiology reports) and a timestamped MIMIC-III cohort (notes and code-status orders). The exposure was documented prognostic language; outcomes were its association with a subsequent full-code-to-limitation transition, note-stream location, and completeness of documented command-following relative to structured Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) motor scores.
ResultsAmong 31,993 admissions (27,054 patients; median age, 69 years; 54.9% male), prognostic language in the timestamped cohort (MIMIC-III) was associated with a subsequent code-status limitation after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.9-6.5; unadjusted 14-day cumulative incidence, 40% vs 8.5%), including the comfort-measures component (3.9), a higher-risk subgroup (4.4), and after acute-physiology adjustment (4.1); the association was concentrated in the first 3 days. Non-prognostic severity language showed no comparable association (hazard ratios, 1.1-1.3). Prognostic language localized almost entirely to the narrative (4.9% of discharge summaries vs 0.015% of radiology reports); command-following was undocumented in 55.7% of summaries, and no final-24-hour GCS motor score was charted in 72.8%.
ConclusionsDocumented prognostic language after acute brain injury was written in the narrative, not structured fields, and was associated with a subsequent code-status limitation after multivariable adjustment. This observational association cannot establish causation but warrants prospective study.
Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSIn routine records of acute brain injury, where is prognostic language written, and is it associated with a subsequent transition to a limited code status?
FindingsAcross 31,993 admissions, prognostic language was detected in 4.9% of discharge summaries but almost never in radiology reports; in a timestamped cohort it was associated with a subsequent full-code-to-limitation transition after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio, 4.3; 4.1 with added acute physiology), an association not seen for far more common non-prognostic severity text and concentrated in the first 3 days. This observational association cannot establish causation.
MeaningPrognostic language lives in the treating teams narrative and is closely coupled with subsequent code-status decisions, warranting prospective study.
Related
- Baseline miR-10a, miR-146a, and miR-155 expression and subsequent clinical and radiological outcomes in multiple sclerosis : A retrospective observational study
- Sepsis and Chronic Liver Disease: Mortality and Prognostic Factors. A 12-Year Retrospective Analytical-Descriptive Observational Study Sepsis y hepatopatía crónica: mortalidad y factores pronósticos. Estudio observacional analítico-descriptivo retrospectivo de 12 años
- Prognostic value of hormone receptor expression in patients with HR+/HER2− advanced BC treated with first-line ET+CDK4/6i: results from the multicentre observational, real-world PALMARES-2 study
- Prognostic Value of Blood Ammonia, Lactate, and Brain Natriuretic Peptide in Pediatric Patients With Sepsis: A Prospective, Observational Study
- Type of dialysis may influence the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging in end stage renal disease: an observational [¹³N]NH₃ PET/CT study.
BibTeX
@misc{gorenshtein2026prognostic,
title = {{Prognostic Language and Subsequent Code-Status Limitation After Acute Brain Injury: A Multidatabase Observational Study}},
author = {A. Gorenshtein and Y. Adiniaev and A. Srour and E. Klang and O. Daniel},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = aug,
doi = {10.64898/2026.08.27.26361534},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.27.26361534v1},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Prognostic Language and Subsequent Code-Status Limitation After Acute Brain Injury: A Multidatabase Observational Study
AU - A. Gorenshtein
AU - Y. Adiniaev
AU - A. Srour
AU - E. Klang
AU - O. Daniel
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/08/27
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.08.27.26361534
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.27.26361534v1
AB - PurposePrognostic assessments after acute brain injury are largely narrative, and how prognostic language relates to subsequent care has not been measured at scale. We quantified where it is written and its association with a subsequent code-status limitation. Materials and MethodsMultidatabase observational study of adults with acute brain injury or a related neurologic emergency, using MIMIC-IV (2008-2019; discharge summaries and radiology reports) and a timestamped MIMIC-III cohort (notes and code-status orders). The exposure was documented prognostic language; outcomes were its association with a subsequent full-code-to-limitation transition, note-stream location, and completeness of documented command-following relative to structured Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) motor scores. ResultsAmong 31,993 admissions (27,054 patients; median age, 69 years; 54.9% male), prognostic language in the timestamped cohort (MIMIC-III) was associated with a subsequent code-status limitation after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.9-6.5; unadjusted 14-day cumulative incidence, 40% vs 8.5%), including the comfort-measures component (3.9), a higher-risk subgroup (4.4), and after acute-physiology adjustment (4.1); the association was concentrated in the first 3 days. Non-prognostic severity language showed no comparable association (hazard ratios, 1.1-1.3). Prognostic language localized almost entirely to the narrative (4.9% of discharge summaries vs 0.015% of radiology reports); command-following was undocumented in 55.7% of summaries, and no final-24-hour GCS motor score was charted in 72.8%. ConclusionsDocumented prognostic language after acute brain injury was written in the narrative, not structured fields, and was associated with a subsequent code-status limitation after multivariable adjustment. This observational association cannot establish causation but warrants prospective study. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSIn routine records of acute brain injury, where is prognostic language written, and is it associated with a subsequent transition to a limited code status? FindingsAcross 31,993 admissions, prognostic language was detected in 4.9% of discharge summaries but almost never in radiology reports; in a timestamped cohort it was associated with a subsequent full-code-to-limitation transition after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio, 4.3; 4.1 with added acute physiology), an association not seen for far more common non-prognostic severity text and concentrated in the first 3 days. This observational association cannot establish causation. MeaningPrognostic language lives in the treating teams narrative and is closely coupled with subsequent code-status decisions, warranting prospective study.
ER -