Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41061259›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

The Potential of AI in Nursing Care: Multicenter Evaluation in Fall Risk Assessment.

Ivana Nanevski, Sebastian Jäger, Matthias Schulte-Althoff, Eva-Maria Behnke, Daniel Fürstenau, Felix Biessmann

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ivana Nanevski *Berliner Hochschule für Technik, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0374-1210
Sebastian Jäger *Berliner Hochschule für Technik, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9420-8571
Matthias Schulte-AlthoffDepartment of Information Systems, School of Business & Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6096-0906
Eva-Maria BehnkeMedizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3534-4387
Daniel FürstenauDepartment of Information Systems, School of Business & Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8490-7707
Felix BiessmannBerliner Hochschule für Technik, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3422-1026

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith 28%-35% of individuals aged 65 years and older experiencing incidents of falling, falls are the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related deaths globally. Limited availability of clinical staff often impedes the timely detection and prevention of potential falls. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) could complement existing fall risk assessment and help better allocate nursing care resources. Yet, many studies are based on small datasets from a single institution, which can restrict the generalizability of the model, and do not investigate important aspects in AI model development, such as fairness across demographic groups.

objectiveThis study aimed to provide a comprehensive empirical evaluation of the potential of AI in nursing care, focusing on the case of fall risk prediction. To account for demographic and contextual differences in fall incidences, we analyze data from a university and a geriatric hospital in Germany. To the best of our knowledge, these are the largest fall risk prediction datasets to date with heterogeneous data distributions. We focus on 3 key objectives. First, does AI help in improving fall risk prediction? Second, how can AI models be trained safely across different hospitals? Finally, are these models fair?

methodsThis study used 2 datasets for fall risk prediction: one from a university hospital with 931,726 participants, 10,442 of whom experienced falls, and another from a geriatric hospital with 12,773 participants, 1728 of whom have fallen. State-of-the-art AI models were trained with 3 approaches, including 2 decentralized learning paradigms. First, separate models were trained on data from each hospital; second, models were retrained on the respective other dataset; and federated learning (FL) was applied to both datasets. The performance of these models was compared with the rule-based systems as implemented in clinical practice for fall risk prediction. Additional analyses were conducted to test for model fairness.

resultsOur findings demonstrate that AI models consistently outperform rule-based systems across all experimental setups, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.735 (90% CI 0.727-0.744) for the geriatric hospital, and 0.926 (90% CI 0.924-0.928) for the university hospital. FL did not improve the fall risk prediction in this setting. Our fairness analysis ruled out disparities in model performance between different sex groups, but we found fairness infringements across age groups.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that AI models consistently outperform traditional rule-based systems across heterogeneous datasets in predicting fall risk. However, it also reveals the challenges related to demographic shifts and label distribution imbalances, which limited the FL models' ability to generalize. While the fairness analysis indicated fair results across sex subgroups, age-related disparities emerged. Addressing data imbalances and ensuring broader representation across demographic groups will be crucial for developing more fair and generalizable models.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsArtificial IntelligenceNursing CareAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGermanyHumansMaleRisk Assessmentartificial intelligenceclinical decision supportfairnessfall risk predictionfederated learningmachine learningnursing care

Identifiers

PMID41061259
PMCPMC12547331

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.