The Impact of a Machine Learning Early Warning Score on Hospital Mortality: A Multicenter Clinical Intervention Trial
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Translation of these approaches in clinical intervention studies has improved outcomes.
“Translation of these approaches in clinical intervention studies has improved outcomes [16, 34, 35].”
From Use of artificial intelligence in critical care: opportunities and obstacles (2024) · cites this paper as [35]
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