Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32031645›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Prospective and External Evaluation of a Machine Learning Model to Predict In-Hospital Mortality of Adults at Time of Admission.

Nathan Brajer, Brian Cozzi, Michael Gao, Marshall Nichols, Mike Revoir, Suresh Balu, Joseph Futoma, Jonathan Bae, Noppon Setji, Adrian Hernandez and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Using Machine Learning to Predict Uptake to an Online Self-Guided Intervention for Stress During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2025
    Article
  18. Increasing Advance Care Planning Discussions and Documentation.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nathan BrajerDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina.
Brian CozziDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina.
Michael GaoDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina.
Marshall NicholsDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina.
Mike RevoirDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina.
Suresh BaluDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina.
Joseph FutomaDepartment of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Jonathan BaeDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Noppon SetjiDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Adrian HernandezDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Mark SendakDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina.
Duke University · USDuke Institute for Health Innovation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The ability to accurately predict in-hospital mortality for patients at the time of admission could improve clinical and operational decision-making and outcomes. Few of the machine learning models that have been developed to predict in-hospital death are both broadly applicable to all adult patients across a health system and readily implementable. Similarly, few have been implemented, and none have been evaluated prospectively and externally validated. Objectives: To prospectively and externally validate a machine learning model that predicts in-hospital mortality for all adult patients at the time of hospital admission and to design the model using commonly available electronic health record data and accessible computational methods. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prognostic study, electronic health record data from a total of 43 180 hospitalizations representing 31 003 unique adult patients admitted to a quaternary academic hospital (hospital A) from October 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015, formed a training and validation cohort. The model was further validated in additional cohorts spanning from March 1, 2018, to August 31, 2018, using 16 122 hospitalizations representing 13 094 unique adult patients admitted to hospital A, 6586 hospitalizations representing 5613 unique adult patients admitted to hospital B, and 4086 hospitalizations representing 3428 unique adult patients admitted to hospital C. The model was integrated into the production electronic health record system and prospectively validated on a cohort of 5273 hospitalizations representing 4525 unique adult patients admitted to hospital A between February 14, 2019, and April 15, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. Model performance was quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the precision recall curve. Results: A total of 75 247 hospital admissions (median [interquartile range] patient age, 59.5 [29.0] years; 45.9% involving male patients) were included in the study. The in-hospital mortality rates for the training validation; retrospective validations at hospitals A, B, and C; and prospective validation cohorts were 3.0%, 2.7%, 1.8%, 2.1%, and 1.6%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83-0.87), 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.90), respectively. The area under the precision recall curves were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.37), 0.17 (95% CI, 0.13-0.22), 0.22 (95% CI, 0.14-0.31), 0.13 (95% CI, 0.08-0.21), and 0.14 (95% CI, 0.09-0.21), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Prospective and multisite retrospective evaluations of a machine learning model demonstrated good discrimination of in-hospital mortality for adult patients at the time of admission. The data elements, methods, and patient selection make the model implementable at a system level.

Indexed as

HospitalizationHospital MortalityMachine LearningModels, BiologicalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveElectronic Health RecordsFemaleForecastingHospitalsHospitals, TeachingHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID32031645
PMCPMC12068827
OpenAlexW3005410610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.