ArticleCritical care explorations2023
Developing and Validating a Prediction Model For Death or Critical Illness in Hospitalized Adults, an Opportunity for Human-Computer Collaboration.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical predictive artificial intelligence evaluation: A narrative review of trial designs and practical considerations.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in intensive care units: a scoping review addressing the translational gap to clinical practice.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Evaluating sociodemographic bias in a deployed machine-learned patient deterioration model.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Building and Prospectively Evaluating a Prediction Model to Forecast Urgent Dialysis Needs across Four Tertiary Hospitals.American journal of nephrology · 2025Article
- Article
- The Geometry of Language: Understanding LLMs in Bioethics.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Canada's health innovation imperative.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025Article
- Clinical evaluation of a machine learning-based early warning system for patient deterioration.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024Article
- Early Warning Systems for Critical Illness Outside the Intensive Care Unit.Critical care clinics · 2024Review
- Machine learning for healthcare that matters: Reorienting from technical novelty to equitable impact.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Validation of a Proprietary Deterioration Index Model and Performance in Hospitalized Adults.JAMA network open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.