Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33538696›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Machine Learning-Based Early Warning Systems for Clinical Deterioration: Systematic Scoping Review.

Sankavi Muralitharan, Walter Nelson, Shuang Di, Michael McGillion, P J Devereaux, Neil Grant Barr, Jeremy Petch

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 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

7 authors.

Sankavi MuralitharanCentre for Data Science and Digital Health, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2175-8895
Walter Nelson *Centre for Data Science and Digital Health, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5216-7617
Shuang Di *Centre for Data Science and Digital Health, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1707-7613
Michael McGillionSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1343-7012
P J DevereauxPopulation Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2935-637X
Neil Grant BarrHealth Policy and Management, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1032-9112
Jeremy PetchCentre for Data Science and Digital Health, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1614-1046

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTimely identification of patients at a high risk of clinical deterioration is key to prioritizing care, allocating resources effectively, and preventing adverse outcomes. Vital signs-based, aggregate-weighted early warning systems are commonly used to predict the risk of outcomes related to cardiorespiratory instability and sepsis, which are strong predictors of poor outcomes and mortality. Machine learning models, which can incorporate trends and capture relationships among parameters that aggregate-weighted models cannot, have recently been showing promising results.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify, summarize, and evaluate the available research, current state of utility, and challenges with machine learning-based early warning systems using vital signs to predict the risk of physiological deterioration in acutely ill patients, across acute and ambulatory care settings.

methodsPubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for peer-reviewed, original studies with keywords related to "vital signs," "clinical deterioration," and "machine learning." Included studies used patient vital signs along with demographics and described a machine learning model for predicting an outcome in acute and ambulatory care settings. Data were extracted following PRISMA, TRIPOD, and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines.

resultsWe identified 24 peer-reviewed studies from 417 articles for inclusion; 23 studies were retrospective, while 1 was prospective in nature. Care settings included general wards, intensive care units, emergency departments, step-down units, medical assessment units, postanesthetic wards, and home care. Machine learning models including logistic regression, tree-based methods, kernel-based methods, and neural networks were most commonly used to predict the risk of deterioration. The area under the curve for models ranged from 0.57 to 0.97.

conclusionsIn studies that compared performance, reported results suggest that machine learning-based early warning systems can achieve greater accuracy than aggregate-weighted early warning systems but several areas for further research were identified. While these models have the potential to provide clinical decision support, there is a need for standardized outcome measures to allow for rigorous evaluation of performance across models. Further research needs to address the interpretability of model outputs by clinicians, clinical efficacy of these systems through prospective study design, and their potential impact in different clinical settings.

Indexed as

Clinical DeteriorationFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleRetrospective Studiesacute careambulatory carecardiorespiratory instabilityclinical deteriorationearly warning systemsmachine learningremote patient monitoringrisk predictionsepsisvital signs

Identifiers

PMID33538696
PMCPMC7892287

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.