ArticleHeliyon2025
The role of continuous monitoring in acute-care settings for predicting all-cause 30-day hospital readmission: A pilot study.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate prediction and prevention of hospital readmission remains a clinical challenge. The influence of different data sources, including remotely monitored continuous vital signs and activity, on machine learning (ML) models' performances is examined for predicting all-cause unplanned 30-day readmission. Methods: Patients (n = 354) recruited in the emergency department and admitted to acute care at either hospital or home hospital settings are analyzed. Data sources included continuous vital signs and activity, electronic health record (EHR) data - episodic physiological monitoring of laboratory and vital signs, demographics, hospital utilization history, and quality of life survey measures. Five (5) machine learning classifiers were systematically trained by varying input data sources for readmission. Performances of ML models as well as the standard-of-care HOSPITAL score for readmissions were assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under precision-recall curve (AUPRC) statistics. Results: There were 29 patients readmitted out of the 354 total included patients (an 8.2 % readmission rate). The average five-fold cross-validation AUROC and AUPRC scores of the five readmission models ranged from 0.76 to 0.84 (P > .05) and 0.23-0.49 (P < .05), respectively. The model input with episodic physiological monitoring (vitals and labs) had an AUPRC of 0.23 ± 0.07, while the model input with continuous vitals and activity data and episodic vitals and laboratory measurements had an AUPRC of as 0.49 ± 0.10 (P < .005). The HOSPITAL score had an AUROC of 0.62 and AUPRC of 0.16 in this pilot study. Conclusions: The systematic ML modeling and analysis showcased diversity in predictive power and performances of patient data sources for predicting readmission. This pilot study suggests continuous vital signs and activity data, when added to episodic physiological monitoring, boosts performance. The HOSPITAL score shows low predictive power for readmission in this population. Predictive modeling of unplanned 30-day readmission improves with continuous vital signs and activity monitoring.
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.