Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32980667›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2020

Identification of important factors in an inpatient fall risk prediction model to improve the quality of care using EHR and electronic administrative data: A machine-learning approach.

David S Lindberg, Mattia Prosperi, Ragnhildur I Bjarnadottir, Jaime Thomas, Marsha Crane, Zhaoyi Chen, Kristen Shear, Laurence M Solberg, Urszula Alina Snigurska, Yonghui Wu and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Decoding machine learning in nursing research: A scoping review of effective algorithms.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

David S LindbergDepartment of Statistics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Florida, United States. Electronic address: dlindberg@ufl.edu.
Mattia ProsperiDepartment of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions and College of Medicine, University of Florida, United States.
Ragnhildur I BjarnadottirDepartment of Family, Community, and Health Systems Science, College of Nursing, University of Florida, United States.
Jaime ThomasUF Health-Shands Hospital, United States.
Marsha CraneUF Health-Shands Hospital, United States.
Zhaoyi ChenDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, United States.
Kristen ShearDepartment of Family, Community, and Health Systems Science, College of Nursing, University of Florida, United States.
Laurence M SolbergDepartment of Family, Community, and Health Systems Science, College of Nursing, University of Florida, United States; NF/SG VAHS, Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC) Gainesville, Florida, United States.
Urszula Alina SnigurskaDepartment of Family, Community, and Health Systems Science, College of Nursing, University of Florida, United States.
Yonghui WuDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, United States.
Yunpeng XiaDepartment of Family, Community, and Health Systems Science, College of Nursing, University of Florida, United States.
Robert J LuceroDepartment of Family, Community, and Health Systems Science, College of Nursing, University of Florida, United States.
University of Florida · USUF Health Shands Hospital · USGeriatric Research Education and Clinical Center · US

Funding

Advancing Interdisciplinary Science of Aging through Identification of Iatrogenic Complications: The UF EHR Clinical Data Infrastructure for Enhanced Patient Safety among the Elderly (UF-ECLIPSE)R21AG062884 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI INGIBJARGARDOTTIR BJARNADOTTIR, RAGNHILDUR, LUCERO, ROBERT J · 2019 to 2020
$415k
NIA NIH HHS R21 AG062884
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInpatient falls, many resulting in injury or death, are a serious problem in hospital settings. Existing falls risk assessment tools, such as the Morse Fall Scale, give a risk score based on a set of factors, but don't necessarily signal which factors are most important for predicting falls. Artificial intelligence (AI) methods provide an opportunity to improve predictive performance while also identifying the most important risk factors associated with hospital-acquired falls. We can glean insight into these risk factors by applying classification tree, bagging, random forest, and adaptive boosting methods applied to Electronic Health Record (EHR) data.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to use tree-based machine learning methods to determine the most important predictors of inpatient falls, while also validating each via cross-validation. MATERIALS AND

methodsA case-control study was designed using EHR and electronic administrative data collected between January 1, 2013 to October 31, 2013 in 14 medical surgical units. The data contained 38 predictor variables which comprised of patient characteristics, admission information, assessment information, clinical data, and organizational characteristics. Classification tree, bagging, random forest, and adaptive boosting methods were used to identify the most important factors of inpatient fall-risk through variable importance measures. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve were computed via ten-fold cross validation and compared via pairwise t-tests. These methods were also compared to a univariate logistic regression of the Morse Fall Scale total score.

resultsIn terms of AUROC, bagging (0.89), random forest (0.90), and boosting (0.89) all outperformed the Morse Fall Scale (0.86) and the classification tree (0.85), but no differences were measured between bagging, random forest, and adaptive boosting, at a p-value of 0.05. History of Falls, Age, Morse Fall Scale total score, quality of gait, unit type, mental status, and number of high fall risk increasing drugs (FRIDs) were considered the most important features for predicting inpatient fall risk.

conclusionsMachine learning methods have the potential to identify the most relevant and novel factors for the detection of hospitalized patients at risk of falling, which would improve the quality of patient care, and to more fully support healthcare provider and organizational leadership decision-making. Nurses would be able to enhance their judgement to caring for patients at risk for falls. Our study may also serve as a reference for the development of AI-based prediction models of other iatrogenic conditions. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report the importance of patient, clinical, and organizational features based on the use of AI approaches.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsInpatientsArtificial IntelligenceCase-Control StudiesElectronicsHumansMachine LearningRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID32980667
PMCPMC8562928
OpenAlexW3087375354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.