ArticleDigital health
Improving machine learning algorithm for risk of early pressure injury prediction in admission patients using probability feature aggregation.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Objective: Pressure injuries (PIs) pose a significant concern in hospital care, necessitating early and accurate prediction to mitigate adverse outcomes. Methods: The proposed approach receives multiple patients records, selects key features of discrete numerical based on their relevance to PIs, and trains a random forest (RF) machine learning (ML) algorithm to build a predictive model. Pairs of significant categorical features with high contributions to the prediction results are grouped, and the PI risk probability for each group is calculated. High-risk group probabilities are then added as new features to the original feature subset, generating a new feature subset to replace the original one, which is then used to retrain the RF model. Results: The proposed method achieved an accuracy of 83.44%, sensitivity of 84.59%, specificity of 83.42%, and an area under the curve of 0.84. Conclusion: The ML-based approach, coupled with feature aggregation, enhances predictive performance, aiding clinical teams in understanding crucial features and the model's decision-making process.
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.