ArticleDigital health
Admission clinical and functional assessments for predicting inpatient fall risk using 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Falls are a major patient safety concern in inpatient care. This study aimed to develop machine learning models using multidimensional clinical factors to improve early identification of high-risk patients. Methods: A retrospective dataset of 483,174 adult inpatients was analyzed. Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, Extreme Gradient Boosting, and Multi-Layer Perceptron were applied. Models were trained with and without SMOTENC and evaluated using five-fold cross-validation, with emphasis on AUC-ROC, recall, and F1-score. Results: Key predictors included fall history, medication use, dizziness, sensory impairment, and reduced functional status. Without SMOTENC, models achieved moderate AUC-ROC values ranging from 0.62 to 0.72, but exhibited extremely low recall and F1-scores for fall events. After applying SMOTENC, AUC-ROC remained stable in the range of 0.67 to 0.70, while recall improved substantially to approximately 50 to 60 percent. Random Forest and XGBoost demonstrated relatively stable AUC-ROC performance, whereas MLP showed limited generalization ability. Conclusions: Machine learning models can capture clinically relevant fall risk factors, with AUC-ROC indicating moderate discrimination. Severe class imbalance substantially limits minority event detection. Although SMOTENC improves recall, it introduces a precision-recall trade-off, underscoring the need to interpret AUC-ROC alongside class-specific metrics in imbalanced clinical datasets.
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.