Cited by 69Cardiac Arrest and ResuscitationMachine Learning in HealthcareHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

The Impact of a Machine Learning Early Warning Score on Hospital Mortality: A Multicenter Clinical Intervention Trial

Winslow, Christopher J., Edelson, Dana P., Churpek, Matthew M., Taneja, Munish, Shah, Nirav S., Datta, Avisek, Wang, Chi-Hsiung, Ravichandran, Urmila +3 more·2022·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Objectives To determine the impact of a machine learning early warning risk score, electronic Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage (eCART), on mortality for elevated-risk adult inpatients. Design A pragmatic pre- and post-intervention study conducted over the same 10-month period in 2 consecutive years. Setting Four-hospital community-academic health system. Patients All adult patients admitted to a medical-surgical ward. Interventions During the baseline period, clinicians were blinded to eCART scores. During the intervention period, scores were presented to providers. Scores greater than or equal to 95th percentile were designated high risk prompting a physician assessment for ICU admission. Scores between the 89th and 95th percentiles were designated intermediate risk, triggering a nurse-directed workflow that included measuring vital signs every 2 hours and contacting a physician to review the treatment plan. Measurements and main results The primary outcome was all-cause inhospital mortality. Secondary measures included vital sign assessment within 2 hours, ICU transfer rate, and time to ICU transfer. A total of 60,261 patients were admitted during the study period, of which 6,681 (11.1%) met inclusion criteria (baseline period n = 3,191, intervention period n = 3,490). The intervention period was associated with a significant decrease in hospital mortality for the main cohort (8.8% vs 13.9%; p Conclusions Implementation of a machine learning early warning score-driven protocol wa…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ccm.0000000000005492

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 23 · Cited by 69

Authors
Winslow, C. J., Edelson, D. P., Churpek, M. M., Taneja, M., Shah, N. S., Datta, A., Wang, C.-H., Ravichandran, U., McNulty, P., Kharasch, M., & Halasyamani, L. K.
Affiliations
  • Endeavor Health (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2022-08-15
Volume
50
Issue
9
Pages
1339-1347
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4224298644
Cited by
69
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 5
FWCI
14.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Keywords
écart, in-hospital mortality, ICU transfer, vital signs monitoring, risk stratification, early warning systems, medical-surgical inpatients, nurse-to-patient ratio
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Early Warning Score, Adult, Heart Arrest, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Hospital Mortality, Vital Signs

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