ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Dynamic fall risk prediction in hospitalized cancer patients: development and validation of a machine learning model using multidimensional clinical data to overcome over-sensitivity in traditional scales.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTraditional risk assessment tools were commonly used for the prediction of falls in clinical practice. However, their tendency toward over-sensitivity addressed its limitations for hospitalized cancer patients. This study aimed to identify risk factors associated with falls in hospitalized patients and to develop a predictive risk model using machine learning algorithms specifically for cancer patients, to optimize the clinical assessment of fall risk.
methodsUsing data from 298 cancer patients admitted to Shandong Cancer Hospital between January 2023 and December 2024 were included. We described the patient status through three aspects: clinical indicators, laboratory indicators and subjective evaluation indicators. The model was evaluated for performance using five-fold cross-validation. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was used for initiatory variable selection. We constructed predictive models using one baseline method and three machine learning methods, incorporating key clinical features, and selected the optimal model based on a review of categorical performance metrics. Additionally, Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) was used to interpret the predictive models and rank the importance of risk factors.
resultsAmong 298 cancer patients assessed by the Morse Fall Scale, only 115 (39%) experienced falls during hospitalization. Based on LASSO regression and statistical analysis, 20 key predictors were identified from 30 candidate features. The Support Vector Machine model outperformed the other algorithms (Naive Bayes, Multivariate Logistic Regression, and Random Forest), achieving the best performance in both the low-risk and high-risk populations evaluated by the scale, with a composite F1-score of 0.87. SHAP interpretability analysis revealed that medication use, diagnostic findings, and treatment approaches were major risk factors, while the number of comorbidities further increased susceptibility to falls. The model’s precision in stratifying dynamic risks, particularly for high-risk subgroups (e.g., patients with brain metastases or neurotoxic regimens), highlights its clinical utility.
conclusionThis study establishes a clinically interpretable, machine learning-driven fall risk prediction model that dynamically integrates cancer-specific variables. Implementation of this model could enhance risk stratification accuracy, guide personalized intervention strategies, and optimize resource allocation in clinical oncology care settings. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.