Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34513328›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Predicting in-hospital mortality in adult non-traumatic emergency department patients: a retrospective comparison of the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and machine learning approach.

Kuan-Han Wu, Fu-Jen Cheng, Hsiang-Ling Tai, Jui-Cheng Wang, Yii-Ting Huang, Chih-Min Su, Yun-Nan Chang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kuan-Han WuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Fu-Jen ChengDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Hsiang-Ling TaiDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Jui-Cheng WangDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Yii-Ting HuangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Chih-Min SuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Yun-Nan ChangDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
National Sun Yat-sen University · TWChang Gung University · TWKaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA feasible and accurate risk prediction systems for emergency department (ED) patients is urgently required. The Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) is a wide-used tool to predict clinical outcomes in ED. Literatures showed that machine learning (ML) had better predictability in specific patient population than traditional scoring system. By analyzing a large multicenter dataset, we aim to develop a ML model to predict in-hospital morality of the adult non traumatic ED patients for different time stages, and comparing performance with other ML models and MEWS.

methodsA retrospective observational cohort study was conducted in five Taiwan EDs including two tertiary medical centers and three regional hospitals. All consecutively adult (>17 years old) non-traumatic patients admit to ED during a 9-year period (January first, 2008 to December 31th, 2016) were included. Exclusion criteria including patients with (1) out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and (2) discharge against medical advice and transferred to other hospital (3) missing collect variables. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and were categorized into 6, 24, 72, 168 hours mortality. MEWS was calculated by systolic blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, body temperature, and level of consciousness. An ensemble supervised stacking ML model was developed and compared to sensitive and unsensitive Xgboost, Random Forest, and Adaboost. We conducted a performance test and examine both the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) and the area under the precision and recall curve (AUPRC) as the comparative measures.

resultAfter excluding 182,001 visits (7.46%), study group was consisted of 24,37,326 ED visits. The dataset was split into 67% training data and 33% test data for ML model development. There was no statistically difference found in the characteristics between two groups. For the prediction of 6, 24, 72, 168 hours in-hospital mortality, the AUROC of MEW and ML mode was 0.897, 0.865, 0.841, 0.816 and 0.939, 0.928, 0.913, 0.902 respectively. The stacking ML model outperform other ML model as well. For the prediction of in-hospital mortality over 48-hours, AUPRC performance of MEWS drop below 0.1, while the AUPRC of ML mode was 0.317 in 6 hours and 0.2150 in 168 hours. For each time frame, ML model achieved statistically significant higher AUROC and AUPRC than MEWS (all

conclusionStacking ML methods improve predicted in-hospital mortality than MEWS in adult non-traumatic ED patients, especially in the prediction of delayed mortality.

Indexed as

Machine learningMEWSMortality prediction

Identifiers

PMID34513328
PMCPMC8395578
OpenAlexW3194374030

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.