Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37151895›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2023

Developing and Validating a Prediction Model For Death or Critical Illness in Hospitalized Adults, an Opportunity for Human-Computer Collaboration.

Amol A Verma, Chloe Pou-Prom, Liam G McCoy, Joshua Murray, Bret Nestor, Shirley Bell, Ophyr Mourad, Michael Fralick, Jan Friedrich, Marzyeh Ghassemi and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Canada's health innovation imperative.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Article
  8. Clinical evaluation of a machine learning-based early warning system for patient deterioration.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Amol A VermaSt. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Chloe Pou-PromSt. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Liam G McCoyDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Joshua MurraySt. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Bret NestorDepartment of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Shirley BellSt. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ophyr MouradSt. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michael FralickDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jan FriedrichSt. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Marzyeh GhassemiVector Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Muhammad MamdaniSt. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
St. Michael's Hospital · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAUnity Health TorontoVector Institute · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hospital early warning systems that use machine learning (ML) to predict clinical deterioration are increasingly being used to aid clinical decision-making. However, it is not known how ML predictions complement physician and nurse judgment. Our objective was to train and validate a ML model to predict patient deterioration and compare model predictions with real-world physician and nurse predictions.

designRetrospective and prospective cohort study.

settingAcademic tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Adult general internal medicine hospitalizations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsWe developed and validated a neural network model to predict in-hospital death and ICU admission in 23,528 hospitalizations between April 2011 and April 2019. We then compared model predictions with 3,374 prospectively collected predictions from nurses, residents, and attending physicians about their own patients in 960 hospitalizations between April 30, and August 28, 2019. ML model predictions achieved clinician-level accuracy for predicting ICU admission or death (ML median F1 score 0.32 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.30-0.34], AUC 0.77 [IQ 0.76-0.78]; clinicians median F1-score 0.33 [IQR 0.30-0.35], AUC 0.64 [IQR 0.63-0.66]). ML predictions were more accurate than clinicians for ICU admission. Of all ICU admissions and deaths, 36% occurred in hospitalizations where the model and clinicians disagreed. Combining human and model predictions detected 49% of clinical deterioration events, improving sensitivity by 16% compared with clinicians alone and 24% compared with the model alone while maintaining a positive predictive value of 33%, thus keeping false alarms at a clinically acceptable level.

conclusionsML models can complement clinician judgment to predict clinical deterioration in hospital. These findings demonstrate important opportunities for human-computer collaboration to improve prognostication and personalized medicine in hospital.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical predictionmachine learningmortalityprognosis

Identifiers

PMID37151895
PMCPMC10155889
OpenAlexW4367852560

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.