Early Warning Scores to Predict Noncritical Events Overnight in Hospitalized Medical Patients: A Prospective Case Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physicians are often called to evaluate patients overnight with varying levels of clinical deterioration. Early warning scores predict critical clinical deterioration in patients; however, it is unknown whether they are able to reliably predict which patients will need to be seen overnight and whether these patients will require further resource use. METHODS: A prospective case cohort study of 522 patient nights in a single tertiary care hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, was conducted to assess the ability of Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to predict patients who will need to be seen overnight by physicians and will require other healthcare resources. Prediction ability was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and logistic regression models. RESULTS: The MEWS and NEWS both significantly predicted which patients needed to be seen overnight, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (95% confidence interval) for MEWS and NEWS were 0.72 (0.66-0.78) and 0.69 (0.63-0.76), respectively. Odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for MEWS and NEWS predicting need to be seen overnight were 1.52 (1.34-1.73) and 1.22 (1.14-1.31), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both MEWS and NEWS have fair ability to predict patients who will need to be seen overnight. This may be useful for improving handover and resource allocation for overnight care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".