MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410243836 · doi:10.1016/j.esmorw.2025.100141

Development and validation of a clinical prediction model for hospitalization after emergency department admission in patients with cancer

2025· article· en· W4410243836 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Z Kaplan, David van Klaveren, Jason G.A. den Duijn, Rob J.C.G. Verdonschot, N. Wlazlo, Joachim G.J.V. Aerts, Jacoline E. C. Bromberg, Hester F. Lingsma, Jelmer Alsma, Monique M.E.M. Bos

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEMD SeronoGenentechNational Institutes of HealthKing's College LondonCastle BiosciencesSiemens HealthineersModernaAmgenCardinal HealthAstellas PharmaElektaSanofiUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterPfizerSun PharmaRegeneron PharmaceuticalsCancer Research SocietyCVS HealthBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineEmergency medicineMedical emergencyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and purpose Emergency department (ED) admissions by cancer patients often result in hospitalization and prolonged ED stays, contributing to overcrowding. Early identification of patients at risk of hospitalization could improve ED flow and ensure timely provision of oncological care. This study aimed to develop and validate models to predict hospitalization among cancer patients admitted to the ED. Methods Adult cancer patients who were admitted to the ED between 1 July 2018 and 30 September 2020 at the Erasmus University Medical Center were included. Data from electronic health records (EHR) were used to develop two logistic regression models: (i) a baseline model including predictors available after ED triage (e.g. patient characteristics, vital parameters) and (ii) an extended model including blood test results. Predictors were selected using the Wald χ 2 statistic. To prevent overfitting, a uniform shrinkage factor was applied. Model performance was assessed with temporal validation (1 October 2019 to 1 January 2020) and evaluated with calibration plots and C-statistics. Results Of 7284 ED admissions, 3967 (54%) resulted in hospitalization. The most common cancers requiring hospitalization were lung, hepatopancreatobiliary, and colorectal cancer. The baseline model included age, sex, primary malignancy, symptoms, metastasis, temperature, pain score, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate. The model showed good calibration (intercept −0.04, slope 0.86) and discriminative ability [C-statistic 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.74]. The extended model showed improved performance (intercept −0.09, slope 0.92; C-statistic 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.78). Conclusion Hospitalization risk of cancer patients admitted to the ED can be predicted using routinely collected EHR data, which could aid in optimizing ED patient flow and ensuring timely provision of oncological services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESMO Real World Data and Digital OncologySame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207