Developing and Validating a Prediction Model For Death or Critical Illness in Hospitalized Adults, an Opportunity for Human-Computer Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospital early warning systems that use machine learning (ML) to predict clinical deterioration are increasingly being used to aid clinical decision-making. However, it is not known how ML predictions complement physician and nurse judgment. Our objective was to train and validate a ML model to predict patient deterioration and compare model predictions with real-world physician and nurse predictions. DESIGN: Retrospective and prospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Adult general internal medicine hospitalizations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We developed and validated a neural network model to predict in-hospital death and ICU admission in 23,528 hospitalizations between April 2011 and April 2019. We then compared model predictions with 3,374 prospectively collected predictions from nurses, residents, and attending physicians about their own patients in 960 hospitalizations between April 30, and August 28, 2019. ML model predictions achieved clinician-level accuracy for predicting ICU admission or death (ML median F1 score 0.32 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.30-0.34], AUC 0.77 [IQ 0.76-0.78]; clinicians median F1-score 0.33 [IQR 0.30-0.35], AUC 0.64 [IQR 0.63-0.66]). ML predictions were more accurate than clinicians for ICU admission. Of all ICU admissions and deaths, 36% occurred in hospitalizations where the model and clinicians disagreed. Combining human and model predictions detected 49% of clinical deterioration events, improving sensitivity by 16% compared with clinicians alone and 24% compared with the model alone while maintaining a positive predictive value of 33%, thus keeping false alarms at a clinically acceptable level. CONCLUSIONS: ML models can complement clinician judgment to predict clinical deterioration in hospital. These findings demonstrate important opportunities for human-computer collaboration to improve prognostication and personalized medicine in hospital.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".