ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2025
Concurrent prediction of in-hospital mortality and length of stay using single-task, multiclass and multitask machine learning.
Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2025. 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: Accurate predictions of discharge timing and in-hospital mortality could improve hospital efficiency, but clinician estimates are often inconsistent and imprecise. We evaluated if machine learning models could concurrently predict in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LoS) more reliably. Methods and analysis: We used electronic healthcare data from 1 November 2021 to 31 October 2024 from Oxfordshire, UK, using 2 years' data for training and evaluating models using the final year's data. The performance of task-specific extreme gradient boosting (XGB), logistic regression (LR), multilayer perceptron (MLP) and TabNet models for two tasks, mortality prediction and LoS prediction, was compared with a single multiclass XGB model predicting combinations of LoS and mortality and MLP and TabNet-based multitask learning model predicting both outcomes simultaneously. Predictions from the best-performing models were compared with discharge predictions made by clinicians. Results: Clinicians provided relevant discharge predictions for only 3%-5% of admissions, mostly close to discharge. Task-specific XGB models achieved an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.92 and 0.92 for predicting mortality and 0.83 and 0.72 for predicting LoS quartiles in elective and emergency admissions, respectively, outperforming task-specific LR, MLP and TabNet models. Neither the multiclass XGB nor the MLP or TabNet-based multitask models, predicting both outcomes simultaneously, consistently improved performance. The best-performing task-specific XGB models matched clinician LoS prediction accuracy in elective admissions and significantly outperformed clinicians in emergency admissions (p <0.001). Conclusion: Machine learning models can predict in-hospital mortality and LoS as well or better than clinicians, especially for emergency admissions. These models have the potential to be implemented in hospital settings, providing consistent predictions and thus enhancing discharge planning and hospital resource management.
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.