ArticleDigital health
Enhancing clinical reliability in pressure injury prediction: A conformal prediction approach with machine learning models.
Article in Digital health. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pressure injuries (PIs) remain a major global healthcare challenge, increasing morbidity and costs. While Machine Learning (ML) models effectively predict PI risk, their lack of uncertainty quantification limits clinical trust. Conformal Prediction (CP) addresses this issue by providing statistically valid confidence estimates, enhancing model transparency and reliability in clinical practice. Objective: This study aims to improve the reliability and clinical applicability of PI prediction models by integrating CP with traditional ML algorithms, enabling uncertainty-aware predictions for safer and more transparent clinical decisions. Methods: A methodological study was conducted to evaluate ML classifiers for PI risk classification using routinely collected clinical data and alternative data-processing strategies. Model performance was assessed through paired statistical comparisons across resampling folds. Models showing superior performance were subsequently calibrated using a CP framework to generate uncertainty-aware prediction sets, which were evaluated using coverage and efficiency metrics across different confidence levels. Results: The overall incidence of PIs was 27%, with significant predictors including hospital ward, risk level, mattress use, containment, dermatitis, and age (p < 0.05). Among all models, XGBoost (XGB) and Random Forest (RF) showed the best predictive performance. After calibration with CP, both produced well-aligned uncertainty estimates. At Conclusions: Integrating CP into ML models may improve the interpretability and reliability of risk predictions by quantifying uncertainty. Although the findings are promising, they should be interpreted with caution given the modest sample size, event rate, single-center design, and potential variability in clinical documentation. This framework provides a foundation for uncertainty-aware decision support in PI prevention.
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.