ArticlePloS one2025
Modelling in-hospital length of stay: A comparison of linear and ensemble models for competing risk analysis.
Article in PloS one, 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
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
Length of Stay (LoS) for in-hospital patients is a relevant indicator of efficiency in healthcare. Moreover, it is often related to the occurrence of hospital-acquired complications. In this work, we aim to explore time-to-event analysis for modelling LoS. We employed competing risk models (CR), as we considered two mutually exclusive outcomes: favorable discharge and deterioration. The explanatory variables included the patient's sex, age, and longitudinal vital signs collected from a dataset comprising [Formula: see text] admissions. To address sparse measurements, we transformed longitudinal vital signs into cross-sectional statistics. Our approach involves data pre-processing, imputation of missing data, and variable selection. We proposed four types of CR models: Cause-specific Cox, Sub-distribution hazard, and two variants of Random Survival Forests, with both generalised Log-Rank test (cause-specific hazard estimates) and Gray's test (cumulative incidences estimations) as node splitting rules. Performance in LoS CR models was evaluated over a time frame from 2 to 15 days. Additionally, we considered baselines with two well-established clinical early warning scores the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS). The best model was Random Survival Forest using Gray's test split, with Integrated Brier Score[×100] of 0.386, C-Index above 99%, and Brier Score below 0.006, along the entire time frame. Employing cross-sectional statistics derived from vital signs, along with rigorous data pre-processing, outperformed the degree of correctness of modelling LoS, compared to NEWS and MEWS.
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.