MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118010610 · doi:10.2196/25187

Machine Learning–Based Early Warning Systems for Clinical Deterioration: Systematic Scoping Review

2020· article· en· W3118010610 on OpenAlexaff
Sankavi Muralitharan, Walter Nelson, Shuang Di, Michael McGillion, P.J. Devereaux, Neil G. Barr, Jeremy Petch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstitutePublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarning systemSystematic reviewComputer scienceEarly warning systemMedicineArtificial intelligenceMEDLINEChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Timely identification of patients at a high risk of clinical deterioration is key to prioritizing care, allocating resources effectively, and preventing adverse outcomes. Vital signs-based, aggregate-weighted early warning systems are commonly used to predict the risk of outcomes related to cardiorespiratory instability and sepsis, which are strong predictors of poor outcomes and mortality. Machine learning models, which can incorporate trends and capture relationships among parameters that aggregate-weighted models cannot, have recently been showing promising results. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify, summarize, and evaluate the available research, current state of utility, and challenges with machine learning-based early warning systems using vital signs to predict the risk of physiological deterioration in acutely ill patients, across acute and ambulatory care settings. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for peer-reviewed, original studies with keywords related to "vital signs," "clinical deterioration," and "machine learning." Included studies used patient vital signs along with demographics and described a machine learning model for predicting an outcome in acute and ambulatory care settings. Data were extracted following PRISMA, TRIPOD, and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 24 peer-reviewed studies from 417 articles for inclusion; 23 studies were retrospective, while 1 was prospective in nature. Care settings included general wards, intensive care units, emergency departments, step-down units, medical assessment units, postanesthetic wards, and home care. Machine learning models including logistic regression, tree-based methods, kernel-based methods, and neural networks were most commonly used to predict the risk of deterioration. The area under the curve for models ranged from 0.57 to 0.97. CONCLUSIONS: In studies that compared performance, reported results suggest that machine learning-based early warning systems can achieve greater accuracy than aggregate-weighted early warning systems but several areas for further research were identified. While these models have the potential to provide clinical decision support, there is a need for standardized outcome measures to allow for rigorous evaluation of performance across models. Further research needs to address the interpretability of model outputs by clinicians, clinical efficacy of these systems through prospective study design, and their potential impact in different clinical settings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.532
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.050 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations145
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207