ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Simulation of covariate and concept drift in machine learning hospital admission prediction from emergency triage.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning models that predict hospital admission at triage may support patient flow forecasting, yet the effects of covariate drift, concept drift, and retraining on long-term performance are poorly understood. We developed an Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model using deidentified data from all presentations to a metropolitan hospital in Western Australia. Training and validation included 2016 and 2017 presentations (n = 133,814), with rolling quarterly testing from 2018 to 2023 (n = 455,496). Two adaptive strategies were evaluated: quarterly and half-yearly retraining. Covariate drift was assessed using univariate and multivariable analyses, and reporting adhered to TRIPOD + AI and MINIMAR standards. Substantial drift was observed both between training and testing datasets and across the six-year testing period. The base model achieved a mean AUROC of 0.875 (range 0.844-0.887) and mean daily bed error of 7.42 beds (range 0.47-13.1). Retrained models demonstrated improved discrimination (mean AUROC 0.892 and 0.893) and reduced bed error (4.02 and 4.48 beds per day) for quarterly and half-yearly retraining, respectively, with similar calibration and classification performance. Covariate drift meaningfully degraded calibration but not discrimination metrics over time. Simple retraining improved discrimination and reduced calibration concept drift, underscoring the importance of retraining to address drift for temporal model deployment.
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.