比较机器学习和护士预测在多站点紧急护理系统中的入院情况

Jonathan Nover MBA, RN , Matthew Bai MD , Prem Tismina MS , Ganesh Raut MS , Dhavalkumar Patel MS , Girish N. Nadkarni MD, MPH , Benjamin S. Abella MD, MPhil , Eyal Klang MD , Robert Freeman DNP, RN, NE-BC
{"title":"比较机器学习和护士预测在多站点紧急护理系统中的入院情况","authors":"Jonathan Nover MBA, RN ,&nbsp;Matthew Bai MD ,&nbsp;Prem Tismina MS ,&nbsp;Ganesh Raut MS ,&nbsp;Dhavalkumar Patel MS ,&nbsp;Girish N. Nadkarni MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Benjamin S. Abella MD, MPhil ,&nbsp;Eyal Klang MD ,&nbsp;Robert Freeman DNP, RN, NE-BC","doi":"10.1016/j.mcpdig.2025.100249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To prospectively compare nurse predictions with a machine learning (ML) model for hospital admissions and evaluate whether adding the nurse prediction to ML outputs enhances predictive performance.</div></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><div>In this prospective, observational study at 6 hospitals in a large mixed quaternary/community emergency department (ED) system (annual ED census ∼500,000), triage nurses recorded a binary admission prediction for adult patients. These predictions were compared with an ensemble ML model (XGBoost + Bio-Clinical BERT) trained on structured data (demographics, vital signs, and medical history) and triage text. Nurse predictions were similarly analyzed and then integrated with the ML output to assess for improvement in predictive accuracy.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The ensemble ML model (XGBoost + Bio-Clinical BERT) was trained on 1.8 million historical ED visits (January 2019 to December 2023). It was then tested on 46,912 prospective ED visits with recorded nurse predictions (September 1, 2024 to October 31, 2024). In the prospective arm, nurse predictions yielded an accuracy of 81.6% (95% CI, 81.3-81.9), a sensitivity of 64.8% (63.7-65.8), and a specificity of 85.7% (85.3-86.0). At a 0.30 probability threshold, the ML model attained an accuracy of 85.4% (85.0-85.7) and a sensitivity of 70.8% (69.8-71.7). Combining nurse predictions with the ML output did not improve accuracy beyond the model alone.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Machine learning-based predictions outperformed triage nurse estimates for hospital admissions. These findings suggest that an admission prediction system anchored by ML can perform reliably using data available at triage.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74127,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","volume":"3 3","pages":"Article 100249"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Machine Learning and Nurse Predictions for Hospital Admissions in a Multisite Emergency Care System\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Nover MBA, RN ,&nbsp;Matthew Bai MD ,&nbsp;Prem Tismina MS ,&nbsp;Ganesh Raut MS ,&nbsp;Dhavalkumar Patel MS ,&nbsp;Girish N. Nadkarni MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Benjamin S. Abella MD, MPhil ,&nbsp;Eyal Klang MD ,&nbsp;Robert Freeman DNP, RN, NE-BC\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mcpdig.2025.100249\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To prospectively compare nurse predictions with a machine learning (ML) model for hospital admissions and evaluate whether adding the nurse prediction to ML outputs enhances predictive performance.</div></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><div>In this prospective, observational study at 6 hospitals in a large mixed quaternary/community emergency department (ED) system (annual ED census ∼500,000), triage nurses recorded a binary admission prediction for adult patients. These predictions were compared with an ensemble ML model (XGBoost + Bio-Clinical BERT) trained on structured data (demographics, vital signs, and medical history) and triage text. Nurse predictions were similarly analyzed and then integrated with the ML output to assess for improvement in predictive accuracy.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The ensemble ML model (XGBoost + Bio-Clinical BERT) was trained on 1.8 million historical ED visits (January 2019 to December 2023). It was then tested on 46,912 prospective ED visits with recorded nurse predictions (September 1, 2024 to October 31, 2024). In the prospective arm, nurse predictions yielded an accuracy of 81.6% (95% CI, 81.3-81.9), a sensitivity of 64.8% (63.7-65.8), and a specificity of 85.7% (85.3-86.0). At a 0.30 probability threshold, the ML model attained an accuracy of 85.4% (85.0-85.7) and a sensitivity of 70.8% (69.8-71.7). Combining nurse predictions with the ML output did not improve accuracy beyond the model alone.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Machine learning-based predictions outperformed triage nurse estimates for hospital admissions. These findings suggest that an admission prediction system anchored by ML can perform reliably using data available at triage.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74127,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health\",\"volume\":\"3 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100249\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949761225000562\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949761225000562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的前瞻性比较住院护士预测与机器学习(ML)模型,并评估将护士预测加入ML输出是否能提高预测性能。患者和方法在这一前瞻性观察性研究中,在一个大型混合季/社区急诊科(ED)系统(每年ED普查约50万)的6家医院中,分诊护士记录了成年患者的二元入院预测。这些预测与基于结构化数据(人口统计、生命体征和病史)和分类文本训练的集成ML模型(XGBoost + Bio-Clinical BERT)进行比较。护士预测也进行了类似的分析,然后与ML输出相结合,以评估预测准确性的提高。结果集成ML模型(XGBoost + Bio-Clinical BERT)对180万例ED历史就诊(2019年1月至2023年12月)进行了训练。然后对46,912名预期急诊科患者进行了测试,并记录了护士的预测(2024年9月1日至2024年10月31日)。在前瞻性组中,护士预测的准确率为81.6% (95% CI, 81.3-81.9),敏感性为64.8%(63.7-65.8),特异性为85.7%(85.3-86.0)。在0.30的概率阈值下,ML模型的准确率为85.4%(85.0-85.7),灵敏度为70.8%(69.8-71.7)。将护士预测与ML输出相结合并没有提高模型的准确性。结论:基于机器学习的预测优于医院入院分诊护士的估计。这些发现表明,基于ML的入院预测系统可以使用分诊时可用的数据可靠地执行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Machine Learning and Nurse Predictions for Hospital Admissions in a Multisite Emergency Care System

Objective

To prospectively compare nurse predictions with a machine learning (ML) model for hospital admissions and evaluate whether adding the nurse prediction to ML outputs enhances predictive performance.

Patients and Methods

In this prospective, observational study at 6 hospitals in a large mixed quaternary/community emergency department (ED) system (annual ED census ∼500,000), triage nurses recorded a binary admission prediction for adult patients. These predictions were compared with an ensemble ML model (XGBoost + Bio-Clinical BERT) trained on structured data (demographics, vital signs, and medical history) and triage text. Nurse predictions were similarly analyzed and then integrated with the ML output to assess for improvement in predictive accuracy.

Results

The ensemble ML model (XGBoost + Bio-Clinical BERT) was trained on 1.8 million historical ED visits (January 2019 to December 2023). It was then tested on 46,912 prospective ED visits with recorded nurse predictions (September 1, 2024 to October 31, 2024). In the prospective arm, nurse predictions yielded an accuracy of 81.6% (95% CI, 81.3-81.9), a sensitivity of 64.8% (63.7-65.8), and a specificity of 85.7% (85.3-86.0). At a 0.30 probability threshold, the ML model attained an accuracy of 85.4% (85.0-85.7) and a sensitivity of 70.8% (69.8-71.7). Combining nurse predictions with the ML output did not improve accuracy beyond the model alone.

Conclusion

Machine learning-based predictions outperformed triage nurse estimates for hospital admissions. These findings suggest that an admission prediction system anchored by ML can perform reliably using data available at triage.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health Medicine and Dentistry (General), Health Informatics, Public Health and Health Policy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
47 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信