Cited by 35Machine Learning in HealthcareSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

Predicting Intensive Care Transfers and Other Unforeseen Events: Analytic Model Validation Study and Comparison to Existing Methods

Open access
Cummings, Brandon C, Ansari, Sardar, Motyka, Jonathan R, Wang, Guan, Medlin Jr, Richard P, Kronick, Steven L, Singh, Karandeep, Park, Pauline K +9 more·2021·JMIR Medical Informatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 has led to an unprecedented strain on health care facilities across the United States. Accurately identifying patients at an increased risk of deterioration may help hospitals manage their resources while improving the quality of patient care. Here, we present the results of an analytical model, Predicting Intensive Care Transfers and Other Unforeseen Events (PICTURE), to identify patients at high risk for imminent intensive care unit transfer, respiratory failure, or death, with the intention to improve the prediction of deterioration due to COVID-19. Objective: This study aims to validate the PICTURE model’s ability to predict unexpected deterioration in general ward and COVID-19 patients, and to compare its performance with the Epic Deterioration Index (EDI), an existing model that has recently been assessed for use in patients with COVID-19. Methods: The PICTURE model was trained and validated on a cohort of hospitalized non–COVID-19 patients using electronic health record data from 2014 to 2018. It was then applied to two holdout test sets: non–COVID-19 patients from 2019 and patients testing positive for COVID-19 in 2020. PICTURE results were aligned to EDI and NEWS scores for head-to-head comparison via area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve. We compared the models’ ability to predict an adverse event (defined as intensive care unit transfer, mechanical ventilation use, or death). Shapley values were used to provide explanations for PICTURE predictions. Results: In non–COVID-19 general ward patients, PICTURE achieved an AUROC of 0.819 (95% CI 0.805-0.834) per observation, compared to the EDI’s AUROC of 0.763 (95% CI 0.746-0.781; n=21,740; P<.001). In patients testing positive for COVID-19, PICTURE again outperformed the EDI with an AUROC of 0.849 (95% CI 0.820-0.878) compared to the EDI’s AUROC of 0.803 (95% CI 0.772-0.838; n=607; P<.001). The most important variables influencing PICTURE predictions in the COVID-19 cohort were a rapid respiratory rate, a high level of oxygen support, low oxygen saturation, and impaired mental status (Glasgow Coma Scale). Conclusions: The PICTURE model is more accurate in predicting adverse patient outcomes for both general ward patients and COVID-19 positive patients in our cohorts compared to the EDI. The ability to consistently anticipate these events may be especially valuable when considering potential incipient waves of COVID-19 infections. The generalizability of the model will require testing in other health care systems for validation.

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 · 10.2196/25066

Cites

2 of 2 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

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?

  • Cummings 2021 (COVID) only included patients with COVID-19.

    “Similarly, Cummings 2021 3 (COVID) only included patients with COVID-19.”

    From A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Externally Validated Epic Clinical Decision Support Tools (2026) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Introduction states that the study trained and tuned PICTURE on a large non–COVID-19 cohort and validated it in both non–COVID-19 patients and patients with COVID-19. The Methods > Setting and Study Population section identifies the COVID-19 patients as one of four cohorts, not the only patients included. Page numbers are not available in the supplied copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CDS tools directly influence patient care, with sepsis alerts prompting earlier antibiotic administration and fluid resuscitation, and deterioration scores used to trigger rapid response evaluations, intensified monitoring, and escalation of care.

    “These tools directly influence patient care, with sepsis alerts prompting earlier antibiotic administration and fluid resuscitation, and deterioration scores used to trigger rapid response evaluations, intensified monitoring, and escalation of care.[3][4][5]”

    From A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Externally Validated Epic Clinical Decision Support Tools (2026) · cites this paper as [3]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. [2]Smith MEB Chiovaro JC O'Neil M Kansagara D Quiñones AR Freeman M Motu'apuaka ML Slatore CG Early warning system scores for clinical deterioration in hospitalized patients: a systematic review Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014 11 11 9 1454 65 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201403-102OC 25296111 25296111 · DOI
  2. [3]Le Lagadec MD Dwyer T Scoping review: the use of early warning systems for the identification of in-hospital patients at risk of deterioration Aust Crit Care 2017 7 30 4 211 218 10.1016/j.aucc.2016.10.003 27863876 27863876 · DOI
  3. [4]McGaughey J Alderdice F Fowler R Kapila A Mayhew A Moutray M Outreach and Early Warning Systems (EWS) for the prevention of intensive care admission and death of critically ill adult patients on general hospital wards Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 7 18 3 CD005529 10.1002/14651858.CD005529.pub2 17636805 17636805 · DOI
  4. [6]Linnen D Escobar GJ Hu X Scruth E Liu V Stephens C Statistical modeling and aggregate-weighted scoring systems in prediction of mortality and ICU transfer: a systematic review J Hosp Med 2019 3 14 3 161 169 10.12788/jhm.3151 30811322 30811322 PMC6628701 · DOI
  5. [7]Bapoje S Gaudiani J Narayanan V Albert R Unplanned transfers to a medical intensive care unit: causes and relationship to preventable errors in care J Hosp Med 2011 2 6 2 68 72 10.1002/jhm.812 21290577 21290577 · DOI
  6. [8]Young M Gooder V McBride K James B Fisher E Inpatient transfers to the intensive care unit: delays are associated with increased mortality and morbidity J Gen Intern Med 2003 2 18 2 77 83 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20441.x 12542581 12542581 PMC1494814 · DOI
  7. [9]Rothman MJ The emperor has no clothes Crit Care Med 2019 1 47 1 129 130 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003505 30557245 30557245 · DOI
  8. [12]Strickland E AI may help hospitals decide which COVID-19 patients live or die IEEE Spectrum 2020 4 17 2020-06-19 https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/artificial-intelligence/medical-ai/ai-can-help-hospitals-triage-covid19-patients
  9. [13]Gillies C Taylor DF Cummings BC Ansari S Islim F Kronick SL Medlin RP Ward KR Demonstrating the consequences of learning missingness patterns in early warning systems for preventative health care: a novel simulation and solution J Biomed Inform 2020 10 110 103528 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103528 32795506 32795506 · DOI
  10. [14]Lundberg SM Erion G Chen H DeGrave A Prutkin JM Nair B Katz R Himmelfarb J Bansal N Lee S From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees Nat Mach Intell 2020 1 2 1 56 67 10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 32607472 32607472 PMC7326367 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [15]Churpek MM Yuen TC Winslow C Robicsek AA Meltzer DO Gibbons RD Edelson DP Multicenter development and validation of a risk stratification tool for ward patients Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014 9 15 190 6 649 55 10.1164/rccm.201406-1022OC 25089847 25089847 PMC4214112 · DOI
  12. [16]Chen T Guestrin C XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2016 KDD '16 August 2016 San Francisco, CA 785 794 10.1145/2939672.2939785 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [17]Smith GB Prytherch DR Meredith P Schmidt PE Featherstone PI The ability of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to discriminate patients at risk of early cardiac arrest, unanticipated intensive care unit admission, and death Resuscitation 2013 4 84 4 465 70 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.12.016 23295778 23295778 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [19]Pimentel M Redfern OC Gerry S Collins GS Malycha J Prytherch D Schmidt PE Smith GB Watkinson PJ A comparison of the ability of the National Early Warning Score and the National Early Warning Score 2 to identify patients at risk of in-hospital mortality: a multi-centre database study Resuscitation 2019 1 134 147 156 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.09.026 30287355 30287355 PMC6995996 · DOI
  15. [20]Elshawi R Al-Mallah MH Sakr S On the interpretability of machine learning-based model for predicting hypertension BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2019 7 29 19 1 146 10.1186/s12911-019-0874-0 31357998 31357998 PMC6664803 · DOI
  16. [21]Lundberg SM Lee SI A unified approach to interpreting model predictions Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 2017 NIPS 2017 December 4-9, 2017 Long Beach, CA 4765 4774
  17. [22]Ball JW Dains JE Flynn JA Solomon BS Steward RW Seidel's Guide to Physical Examination, 9th edition 2019 London Elsevier Health Sciences

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cummings, B. C., Ansari, S., Motyka, J. R., Wang, G., Medlin Jr, R. P., Kronick, S. L., Singh, K., Park, P. K., Napolitano, L. M., Dickson, R. P., Mathis, M. R., Sjoding, M. W., Admon, A. J., Blank, R., McSparron, J. I., Ward, K. R., & Gillies, C. E.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Cummings, Brandon C
Venue
JMIR Medical Informatics
Published
2021-04-21
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
e25066
ISSN
2291-9694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3143650267
Cited by
35
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (COVID-19)
  • Michigan Institute for Data Science, University of Michigan
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (F32HL149337, T32HL007749)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, ICU transfer, clinical deterioration prediction, NEWS score, respiratory failure, mechanical ventilation, mortality prediction, Shapley value, explainable AI, hospital resource allocation, general ward patients, model validation, adverse event prediction, electronic health records, hospital capacity planning

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