ArticleCritical care explorations2026
Testing Transferability of a Mortality Risk Model for Interhospital Transfer Using Real-World Electronic Health Records: External Validation and Model Enhancement.
Article in Critical care explorations, 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
backgroundMortality risk is often uncertain at the time of interhospital transfer (IHT).
objectivesWe examined what happens when a published machine learning model for post-transfer mortality, SafeNET, is deployed in an independent health system with substantial data fragmentation and missingness and assessed the extent to which local model development can compensate for cross-system data limitations. DERIVATION COHORT: SafeNET was evaluated from published specifications using its original 14-variable feature schema and applied without modification. Locally trained gradient-boosting models (Categorical Boosting [CatBoost], Light Gradient Boosting, Extreme Gradient Boosting) were developed using a stratified 70/30 train-test split with five-fold cross-validation, class weighting, and random under-sampling to address class imbalance (~1:27). VALIDATION COHORT: We included 14,728 adult patients (≥ 18 yr) undergoing IHT at a multihospital academic health system from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023. Functional status variables were missing in 85% of encounters, limiting direct implementation of the original feature set. PREDICTION MODEL: Discrimination, classification metrics (precision, recall, F1 score), and calibration (Brier score) were compared across SafeNET and locally trained models on the held-out test set.
resultsSafeNET achieved performance that closely approximated its development-site results (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC-ROC], 0.87; F1, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.77), indicating strong external consistency. Locally trained CatBoost models outperformed SafeNET (AUC-ROC, 0.92; F1, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.72-0.78) and demonstrated improved calibration (Brier 0.04 vs. 0.055). Key variables, including functional status, were missing in 85% of encounters, limiting direct implementation of the original feature set. Although recall exceeded 0.70 across most models, precision remained below 080 for several configurations, indicating important trade-offs relevant to clinical deployment.
conclusionsSafeNET's performance was reproducible in an external health system, supporting its portability. However, local models trained on system-specific electronic health record patterns achieved markedly higher accuracy and calibration. Real-world replication revealed major data-availability barriers and highlighted the tension between acceptable recall and suboptimal precision in critical-care prognostic applications.
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.