ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Comparison of Multimodal Deep Learning Approaches for Predicting Clinical Deterioration in Ward Patients.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveImplementing machine learning models to identify clinical deterioration on the wards is associated with improved outcomes. However, these models have high false positive rates and only use structured data. Therefore, we aim to compare models with and without information from clinical notes for predicting deterioration. MATERIALS AND
methodsAdults admitted to the wards at the University of Chicago (development cohort) and University of Wisconsin-Madison (external validation cohort) were included. Predictors consisted of structured and unstructured variables extracted from notes as Concept Unique Identifiers (CUIs). We parameterized CUIs in five ways: Standard Tokenization (ST), ICD Rollup using Tokenization (ICDR-T), ICD Rollup using Binary Variables (ICDR-BV), CUIs as SapBERT Embeddings (SE), and CUI Clustering using SapBERT embeddings (CC). Each parameterization method combined with structured data and structured data-only were compared for predicting intensive care unit transfer or death in the next 24 hours using deep recurrent neural networks.
resultsThe study included 506,076 ward patients, 4.9% of whom experienced the outcome. The SE model achieved the highest AUPRC (0.208), followed by CC (0.199) and the structured-only model (0.199), ICDR-BV (0.194), ICDR-T (0.166), and ST (0.158). The CC and structured-only models achieved the highest AUROC (0.870), followed by ICDR-T (0.867), ICDR-BV (0.866), ST (0.860), and SE (0.859). DISCUSSION: A multimodal model combining structured data with embeddings using SapBERT had the highest AUPRC, but performance was similar between models with and without CUIs.
conclusionThe addition of CUIs from notes to structured data did not meaningfully improve model performance for predicting clinical deterioration.
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.