ArticleScientific reports2026
A hierarchical conformal framework for uncertainty-aware length of stay prediction in multi-hospital settings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uncertainty quantification in hierarchical healthcare data presents a fundamental methodological challenge. Existing approaches face fundamental trade-offs. Conformal prediction offers coverage guarantees but struggles to adapt to instance-level difficulty in clusters, while Bayesian methods quantify uncertainty but lose reliability when models are misspecified. We propose a hybrid framework for hierarchical random forests that addresses the trade-off between coverage and precision by combining group-aware conformal calibration with Bayesian posterior uncertainties to yield adaptive prediction intervals with near-nominal empirical coverage. We assess length-of-stay predictions on 61538 patients from 3793 hospitals using 5-fold cross-validation. The hybrid approach achieved near-target coverage (94.3 % ± 0.5 pp vs 95 % nominal) with adaptive interval width reallocation across uncertainty strata (21 % narrower for low-uncertainty cases, 6 % wider for high-uncertainty cases) comparable to standard conformal prediction (95.0 % ± 0.2 pp) which produces uniform-width intervals. Post-hoc Bayesian calibration alone severely under-covered (14.1 %) under our Gaussian specification, highlighting the necessity of conformal adjustment. Performance remained stable across hospitals and folds, with grouped cross-validation (hospital holdout) confirming generalization to unseen institutions. The pooled calibration approach achieves near-nominal empirical coverage at scale, supporting evidence-based resource allocation and risk-stratified patient management without site-specific recalibration.
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.