Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39294553›Full record

ArticleJournal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing2025

Decoding machine learning in nursing research: A scoping review of effective algorithms.

Jeeyae Choi, Hanjoo Lee, Yeounsoo Kim-Godwin

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. AI-Based Learning Experiences of Nursing Students: A Qualitative Study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Decoding machine learning in nursing research: A scoping review of effective algorithms.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Jeeyae ChoiSchool of Nursing, College of Health and Human Services, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7287-6384
Hanjoo LeeJoint Biomedical Engineering Department, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Yeounsoo Kim-GodwinSchool of Nursing, College of Health and Human Services, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has revolutionized healthcare, particularly through the integration of AI into health information systems. This transformation has significantly impacted the roles of nurses and nurse practitioners, prompting extensive research to assess the effectiveness of AI-integrated systems. This scoping review focuses on machine learning (ML) used in nursing, specifically investigating ML algorithms, model evaluation methods, areas of focus related to nursing, and the most effective ML algorithms.

designThe scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.

methodsA structured search was performed across seven databases according to PRISMA-ScR: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, OVID, PsycINFO, and ProQuest. The quality of the final reviewed studies was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

resultsTwenty-six articles published between 2019 and 2023 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 46% of studies were conducted in the US. The average MERSQI score was 12.2, indicative of moderate- to high-quality studies. The most used ML algorithm was Random Forest. The four second-most used were logistic regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, decision tree, and support vector machine. Most ML models were evaluated by calculating sensitivity (recall)/specificity, accuracy, receiver operating characteristic (ROC), area under the ROC (AUROC), and positive/negative prediction value (precision). Half of the studies focused on nursing staff or students and hospital readmission or emergency department visits. Only 11 articles reported the most effective ML algorithm(s).

conclusionThe scoping review provides insights into the current status of ML research in nursing and recognition of its significance in nursing research, confirming the benefits of ML in healthcare. Recommendations include incorporating experimental designs in research studies to optimize the use of ML models across various nursing domains. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The scoping review demonstrates substantial clinical relevance of ML applications for nurses, nurse practitioners, administrators, and researchers. The integration of ML into healthcare systems and its impact on nursing practices have important implications for patient care, resource management, and the evolution of nursing research.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine LearningNursing ResearchHumansartificial intelligencemachine learningmachine learning algorithmsperformance validationscoping review

Identifiers

PMID39294553
PMCPMC11771615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.