SynthesisPloS one2024
Using machine learning methods to predict all-cause somatic hospitalizations in adults: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- The Effectiveness of Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Healthcare Service Quality Metrics: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Machine Learning Prediction of Prolonged Length of Stay in Older Patients with Lung Cancer: A Multicenter Study Using XGBoost with SHAP Interpretation.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
- Risk factors for frequent unplanned hospital visits in older multimorbid patients after an emergency department visit: a retrospective cohort study.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimIn this review, we investigated how Machine Learning (ML) was utilized to predict all-cause somatic hospital admissions and readmissions in adults.
methodsWe searched eight databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, ProQuest, OpenGrey, WorldCat, and MedNar) from their inception date to October 2023, and included records that predicted all-cause somatic hospital admissions and readmissions of adults using ML methodology. We used the CHARMS checklist for data extraction, PROBAST for bias and applicability assessment, and TRIPOD for reporting quality.
resultsWe screened 7,543 studies of which 163 full-text records were read and 116 met the review inclusion criteria. Among these, 45 predicted admission, 70 predicted readmission, and one study predicted both. There was a substantial variety in the types of datasets, algorithms, features, data preprocessing steps, evaluation, and validation methods. The most used types of features were demographics, diagnoses, vital signs, and laboratory tests. Area Under the ROC curve (AUC) was the most used evaluation metric. Models trained using boosting tree-based algorithms often performed better compared to others. ML algorithms commonly outperformed traditional regression techniques. Sixteen studies used Natural language processing (NLP) of clinical notes for prediction, all studies yielded good results. The overall adherence to reporting quality was poor in the review studies. Only five percent of models were implemented in clinical practice. The most frequently inadequately addressed methodological aspects were: providing model interpretations on the individual patient level, full code availability, performing external validation, calibrating models, and handling class imbalance.
conclusionThis review has identified considerable concerns regarding methodological issues and reporting quality in studies investigating ML to predict hospitalizations. To ensure the acceptability of these models in clinical settings, it is crucial to improve the quality of future studies.
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.