ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2025
Vital Signs-Only Machine Learning Model for Acute Inpatient Deterioration: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 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
Objective: To develop predictive models that are compatible with vital signs monitoring devices to identify patients at risk of clinical deterioration, defined as requiring a rapid response team intervention or an unplanned intensive care unit transfer. Patients and Methods: Targeted vital signs from 227,858 inpatients admitted to general care or telemetry beds at a multihospital health care institution between January 1, 2019, and July 31, 2023, were selected. After filtering for high-quality data, 30,118 patients were used to train a Light Gradient Boosting Machine, and 30,095 were reserved for blind validation. We developed a machine learning model designed to minimize false positives while maintaining clinical relevance in identifying low-prevalence clinical deterioration events. Results: At a sensitivity of 73.4% (95% CI, 72.2%-74.4%), the model achieved a positive predictive value (PPV) of 30.4% (95% CI, 29.6%-31.3%), with a C-statistic of 0.874 (95% CI, 0.867-0.881), alert rate of 0.170 (95% CI, 0.167-0.173) per patient per day, and normalized alert rate of 2.41 (95% CI, 2.31-2.51). Stratified analysis by hospital revealed that PPV was highest at the Rochester site, reaching 54.9% (95% CI, 52.9%-57.0%) and outperforming the EPIC deterioration index by 46% or a factor of 6 (7.57%). Conclusion: Achieving a high PPV is crucial because it ensures a larger proportion of alerts are true positives, reducing the burden of false alarms. The considerable improvement in results comes from the novel 2-window feature extraction method. This technique enables the model to capture both long-term trends and recent changes in patient status, enhancing predictive performance.
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.