Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40791833›Full record

ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025

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

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.
Matthew BaiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY.
Prem TisminaInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Ganesh RautInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Dhavalkumar PatelInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Girish N NadkarniThe Division of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Benjamin S AbellaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY.
Eyal KlangThe Division of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Robert FreemanThe Division of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.

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

Objective: To prospectively compare nurse predictions with a machine learning (ML) model for hospital admissions and evaluate whether adding the nurse prediction to ML outputs enhances predictive performance. Patients and Methods: In this prospective, observational study at 6 hospitals in a large mixed quaternary/community emergency department (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, and 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 to December 2023). It was then tested on 46,912 prospective ED visits with recorded nurse predictions (September 1, 2024 to October 31, 2024). In the prospective arm, nurse predictions yielded an accuracy of 81.6% (95% CI, 81.3-81.9), a sensitivity of 64.8% (63.7-65.8), and a 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 a sensitivity of 70.8% (69.8-71.7). Combining nurse predictions with the ML output did not improve accuracy beyond the model alone. Conclusion: 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

PMID40791833
PMCPMC12336817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.