Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40297445›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025

Comparing Machine Learning and Nurse Predictions for Hospital Admissions in a Multisite Emergency Care System.

Jonathan Nover, Mathew Bai, Prem Tismina, Ganesh Raut, Dhavalkumar Patel, Girish N Nadkarni, Benjamin S Abella, Eyal Klang, Robert Freeman

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jonathan NoverDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY 10029, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6923-381X
Mathew BaiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY 10029, United States.
Prem TisminaInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, United States.
Ganesh RautInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, United States.
Dhavalkumar PatelInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, United States.
Girish N NadkarniThe Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA.
Benjamin S AbellaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY 10029, United States.
Eyal KlangThe Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA.
Robert FreemanThe Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA.

Funding

Conduits: Mount Sinai Health System Translational Science HubUL1TR004419 · NCATS · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI Rosalind J Wright · 2022 to 2026
$46.4M
COVID and Translational Science supercomputer (CATS)S10OD030463 · OD · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI KOVATCH, PATRICIA · 2021 to 2021
$2.0M
Big Omics Data Engine 2 SupercomputerS10OD026880 · OD · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI KOVATCH, PATRICIA · 2019 to 2019
$2.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR004419NIH HHS S10 OD026880NIH HHS S10 OD030463
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Emergency department (ED) crowding strains patient care and drives up costs. Early decisions on the need for patient hospital admissions can allow for better planning and potentially improve throughput and alleviate crowding. We sought to prospectively compare nurse predictions with a machine learning (ML) model for hospital admissions and to evaluate whether adding the nurse prediction to ML outputs enhances predictive performance. Methods: In this prospective, observational study at six hospitals in a large mixed quarternary/community ED system (annual ED census ~500,000), triage nurses recorded a binary admission prediction for adult patients. These predictions were compared with an ensemble ML model (XGBoost + Bio-Clinical BERT) trained on structured data (demographics, vital signs, medical history) and triage text. Nurse predictions were similarly analyzed and then integrated with the ML output to assess for improvement in predictive accuracy. Results: The ensemble ML model (XGBoost + Bio-Clinical BERT) was trained on 1.8 million historical ED visits (January 2019-December 2023). It was then tested on 46,912 prospective ED visits with recorded nurse predictions (September to October 2024). In the prospective arm, nurse predictions yielded an accuracy of 81.6% (95% CI, 81.3-81.9), sensitivity of 64.8% (63.7-65.8), and specificity of 85.7% (85.3-86.0). At a 0.30 probability threshold, the ML model attained an accuracy of 85.4% (85.0-85.7) and sensitivity of 70.8% (69.8-71.7). Combining nurse predictions with the ML output did not improve accuracy beyond the model alone. Conclusions: Machine learning-based predictions outperformed triage nurse estimates for hospital admissions. These findings suggest that an admission prediction system anchored by ML can perform reliably using data available at triage.

Identifiers

PMID40297445
PMCPMC12036418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.