ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Study on medical dispute prediction model and its clinical-application effectiveness based on machine learning.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Work withdrawal behavior and its associations with perceived stress and work-life balance among nurses: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedical dispute is a global public health issue, which has been garnering increasing attention. In this study, we used machine learning (ML) method to establish a dispute prediction model and explored the clinical-application efficiency of this model in effectively reducing the occurrence of medical disputes.
methodsRetrospective study of All disputes filed by Gansu Medical Mediation Committee from 2019 to 2021 and patients with the same hospital level as that of the dispute group and hospitalization year were randomly selected as the control group in 1:1 ratio. SPSS software was used for univariate feature selection of the 14 factors that may cause disputes, and factors with statistical differences were selected. The data were divided into training and test sets in a 7:3 ratio. Six ML models were selected, and Python was used to establish a dispute prediction model. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision, average precision (AP), and F1 score were used to characterize the fitting and accuracy of the models, while decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to evaluate their clinical utility.
resultsA total of 1189 patients in the dispute and control groups were extracted. Following 11 influencing factors were selected: the inpatient department, doctor title, patient age, patient gender, patient occupation, payment method, hospitalization days, hospitalization times, discharge method, blood transfusion volume, and hospitalization espenses. Compared to other models, the AUC (0.945, 95% CI 0.913-0.981), Sensitivity (0.887), Accuracy (0.887), AP (0.834), and F1 score (0.880) of the random forest model were higher than those of other models, while the DCA curve indicated its high clinical benefits.
conclusionsInpatient department, hospitalization expenses, and discharge type are the primary influencing factors of dispute. Random forest exhibited high dispute prediction and clinical-application value and is expected to be promoted for offline dispute prediction.
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.