Predictive modeling of pressure injury risk in patients admitted to an intensive care unit
Abstract
Background: Pressure injuries are an important problem in hospital care. Detecting the population at risk for pressure injuries is the first step in any preventive strategy. Available tools such as the Norton and Braden scales do not take into account all of the relevant risk factors. Data mining and machine learning techniques have the potential to overcome this limitation. Objectives: To build a model to detect pressure injury risk in intensive care unit patients and to put the model into production in a real environment. Methods: The sample comprised adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit (N = 6694) at University Hospital of Torrevieja and University Hospital of Vinalopó. A retrospective design was used to train (n = 2508) and test (n = 1769) the model and then a prospective design was used to test the model in a real environment (n = 2417). Data mining was used to extract variables from electronic medical records and a predictive model was built with machine learning techniques. The sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve, and accuracy of the model were evaluated. Results: The final model used logistic regression and incorporated 23 variables. The model had sensitivity of 0.90, specificity of 0.74, and area under the curve of 0.89 during the initial test, and thus it outperformed the Norton scale. The model performed well 1 year later in a real environment. Conclusions: The model effectively predicts risk of pressure injury. This allows nurses to focus on patients at high risk for pressure injury without increasing workload.
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?
Ladios-Martin et al. predictive model for pressure ulcers using logistic regression demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.90, specificity of 0.74, and an area under the curve of 0.89.
“The model demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.90, specificity of 0.74, and an area under the curve of 0.89.”
From Artificial intelligence in healthcare: transforming patient safety with intelligent systems—A systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [70]
Cites
Can we open the black box of AI?
Castelvecchi, D. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/538020a · Cited by 1,773 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The role of artificial intelligence in enhancing clinical nursing care: A scoping review
Ng, Z. Q. P., Ling, L. Y. J., Chew, H. S. J., & Lau, Y. (2022) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/jonm.13425 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
De Micco, F., Di Palma, G., Ferorelli, D., De Benedictis, A., Tomassini, L., Tambone, V., Cingolani, M., & Scendoni, R. (2025) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1522554 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ladios-Martin, M., Fernández-de-Maya, J., Ballesta-López, F.-J., Belso-Garzas, A., Mas-Asencio, M., & Cabañero-Martínez, M. J.
- Affiliations
- About the Authors: Mireia Ladios-Martin is head of quality, Ribera Salud, Valencia, Spain.
- José Fernández-de-Maya is a patient safety officer, University Hospital of Vinalopó, Alicante, Spain, and University Hospital of Torrevieja, Alicante, Spain.
- Hospital Universitario del Vinalopó (ES)
- Adrián Belso-Garzas is a data science lead and Manuel Mas-Asencio is a data analytics manager, Futurs, Alicante, Spain.
- María José Cabañero-Martínez is an associate professor, Nursing Department, University of Alicante, Spain.
- Venue
- American Journal of Critical Care
- Publisher
- AACN Publishing
- Published
- 2020-07-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e70-e80
- ISSN
- 1062-3264 (ISSN-L)
- 1937-710X
- OpenAlex
- W3039013668
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5
- FWCI
- 7.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Critical Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RUA, Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Alicante (Universidad de Alicante) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- pressure ulcers, pressure ulcer risk prediction, intensive care unit patients, risk assessment, Norton scale, Braden scale, electronic health records, logistic regression, clinical decision support, nursing workload
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Critical Care, Pressure Ulcer, Female, Hemoglobins, Hospitals, University, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Risk Assessment, APACHE, Young Adult, Data Mining, Electronic Health Records
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