ArticleScientific reports2026
Early prediction of pressure injury risk in hospitalized patients using supervised machine learning models based on nursing records.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multifactorial Risk Assessment of Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries Among High-Risk Patients: A Case-Control Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pressure Injury Risk Assessment in Nursing Practice: A Head-to-Head Comparison of the Braden Scale and Machine Learning Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing clinical reliability in pressure injury prediction: A conformal prediction approach with machine learning models.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to employ supervised models for predicting pressure injuries in hospitalized patients using data collected within the first eight hours after admission, thus providing a tool for early assessment and prevention. The dataset included 446 patients admitted to multiple hospital wards at Félix Bulnes Clinical Service Hospital in Santiago, Chile, between January and December 2022. After preprocessing the data through imputation and feature selection, we evaluated five machine learning models, Decision Tree, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Extreme Gradient Boosting, and Support Vector Machines, using cross-validation. Their performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC. The incidence of pressure injuries was 18.8%, with 9.86% occurring in the adult medical-surgical unit. Key risk factors identified included size, weight, total risk score, hospital ward, dependency risk, use of anti-decubitus mattresses, physical restraints, incontinence, and pre-hospital pressure injuries (p-value < 0.01). The Random Forest model showed the best performance, achieving an AUC of 82.4%, an accuracy of 82.5%, a specificity of 86.9%, and an adjusted precision of 93.3%. These results indicate that predictive models based on early nursing records can support clinical decision-making and enable timely prevention of pressure injuries in hospitalized patients.
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.