ArticleScientific reports2022
Improved inpatient deterioration detection in general wards by using time-series vital signs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of time-series models for predicting physiological metrics under sedation.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025Article
- A Machine Learning Approach for Predicting In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Using Single-Day Vital Signs, Laboratory Test Results, and International Classification of Disease-10 Block for Diagnosis.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Prospective, multicenter validation of the deep learning-based cardiac arrest risk management system for predicting in-hospital cardiac arrest or unplanned intensive care unit transfer in patients admitted to general wards.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Article
- Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources for Inpatient Deterioration Detection With Time-Series Vital Signs: Design and Implementation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although in-hospital cardiac arrest is uncommon, it has a high mortality rate. Risk identification of at-risk patients is critical for post-cardiac arrest survival rates. Early warning scoring systems are generally used to identify hospitalized patients at risk of deterioration. However, these systems often require clinical data that are not always regularly measured. We developed a more accurate, machine learning-based model to predict clinical deterioration. The time series early warning score (TEWS) used only heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and respiratory data, which are regularly measured in general wards. We tested the performance of the TEWS in two tasks performed with data from the electronic medical records of 16,865 adult admissions and compared the results with those of other classifications. The TEWS detected more deteriorations with the same level of specificity as the different algorithms did when inputting vital signs data from 48 h before an event. Our framework improved in-hospital cardiac arrest prediction and demonstrated that previously obtained vital signs data can be used to identify at-risk patients in real-time. This model may be an alternative method for detecting patient deterioration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.