ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning to improve predictive performance of prehospital early warning scores.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early warning scores are used to assess acute patients' risk of being in a critical situation, allowing for early appropriate treatment, avoiding critical outcomes. The early warning scores use changes in vital signs to provide an assessment, however they tend to identify a considerable number of false positive cases, especially among prehospital patients. We investigated the development and validation of predictive scores based on machine learning models among patients (aged ≥ 18 years) who used ambulances in the North Denmark Region from July 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. The machine learning models were compared to standard early warning scores (NEWS2 and DEPT), on 7- and 30-day mortality and intensive care admission. The cohort of 219,323 patients was split into development (n = 175,458 (80%)) and validation (n = 43,865 (20%)) datasets to respectively develop and test the machine learning models. These models were logistic regression, random forest, Bayesian networks, and gradient boosting. The machine learning models outperformed NEWS2 and DEPT, with fewer false positives, reducing the number of patients needed to screen by nearly half, for 7 day mortality. This has the potential to reduce both under- and over-triage, improving the precision of the triage among prehospital patients.
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.