Cited by 8Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareEmergency and Acute Care Studies

Artificial Intelligence-powered tiered early warning framework addressing high false alarm rates for in-hospital mortality prediction

Open access
Wu, Lijuan, Mai, Liyi, Wang, Hongnian, Huang, Jinxin, He, Xinrong, Zhan, Xueyun, Khalemsky, Anna, Kumar, Vijaya Arun +24 more·2026·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Alert fatigue remains a major barrier to the effective deployment of predictive models in emergency care, particularly in the context of rare but critical outcomes such as in-hospital mortality (IHM), which often occurs in less than 5.0% of patients admitted from the emergency department (ED). Severe class imbalance leads to low positive predictive value (PPV), undermining the clinical utility of even high-performance predictive models. To address this issue, we propose AI-TEW (Artificial Intelligence-powered Tiered Early Warning), a novel two-stage early warning framework designed to reduce false alarms and improve clinical interpretability. In Stage 1, a robust machine learning model was developed and validated using data from 174,292 ED visits across three hospitals in China and the United States. The model demonstrated strong discriminative ability for IHM prediction, achieving AUROCs ranging from 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.86) to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.91) in internal and external validation cohorts. In Stage 2, AI-TEW implements a tiered risk stratification strategy by optimizing decision thresholds to prioritize high-risk patients, thereby increasing PPV from baseline levels of 9.8-18.8% to 32.5-40.5% across sites, while maintaining a high negative predictive value (NPV) of over 98% for low-risk individuals. To further refine alert precision, a knowledge-based filtering layer is introduced, leveraging large language models (LLM) to interpret patient-specific risk factors derived from SHAP (Shapley Additive exPlanations) method. Integrating explainable AI with clinical reasoning enhances contextual understanding and reduces spurious alerts, leading to an 11.53% increase in PPV in external validation (p = 0.0092 for MedGemma). By integrating improved predictive efficiency with interpretable, knowledge-informed filtering, AI-TEW reduces alert burden while supporting timely clinical intervention, demonstrating a promising approach to mitigating the impact of class imbalance in emergency risk prediction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-026-02522-8

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wu, L., Mai, L., Wang, H., Huang, J., He, X., Zhan, X., Khalemsky, A., Kumar, V. A., Paxton, J. H., Tsilimingras, D., Hachimi-Idrissi, S., Liu, S. W., Savioli, G., Rathlev, N. K., Tazarourte, K., Slagman, A., Christ, M., Qureshi, M., Hariri, H., Grossman, S. A., Hu, B., Wang, H., He, B., Levy, P. D., O’Neil, B. J., Gemme, S., Kurland, L., Lang, E., Lin, J., Liang, H., Li, X., & Bellou, A.
Affiliations
  • Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences (CN)
  • North Sichuan Medical University (CN)
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Pavia (IT)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • Hospices Civils de Lyon (FR)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • University of Lucerne (CH)
  • Alfaisal University (SA)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Örebro University (SE)
  • Alberta Health Services (CA)
  • Shenzhen University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Lin, Jinle
  • Liang, Huiying
  • Li, Xin
  • Bellou, Abdelouahab
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2026-03-14
Volume
9
Issue
1
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7135397944
Cited by
8
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 8
FWCI
27.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Guangdong Natural Science Foundation General Project (2024A1515012112)
  • Guangdong Medical Research Fund Project (A2024044)
  • National Natural Science Fund of China (82302462)
  • Guang Dong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (2022A1515111206)
  • National Key R&D Program of China-Intergovernmental Key Projects (2023YFE0114300)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
Keywords
in-hospital mortality prediction, early warning systems, alarm fatigue, false alarm reduction, class imbalance, positive predictive value, decision threshold optimization, large language models, SHAP, emergency department, clinical risk prediction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review