This study compares the performance of several early warning scores for detecting clinical deterioration in hospitalized patients, focusing on AI-based and non-AI-based tools, using data from seven hospitals. 1?? AI-based models generally outperformed non-AI scores in identifying clinical deterioration, achieving higher accuracy and fewer false positives . 2?? Non-AI models demonstrated strong performance, particularly in some cases surpassing certain AI tools?. 3?? AI-based tools provided more accurate alerts and offered longer lead times for clinical intervention . 4?? Non-AI models remain effective and present a viable public alternative, performing better than some AI systems in certain circumstances . 5?? The study emphasizes the necessity for increased transparency and regulatory oversight due to wide variability in performance across early warning tools . ??? Dana P. Edelson, MD, MS, Matthew Churpek, Kyle A. Carey, Zhenqui?Lin, Chenxi?Huang,?Jonathan M. Siner, Jennifer Johnson, MSN, APRN, PMP, Harlan Krumholz,?Deborah J. Rhodes. Early Warning Scores With and Without Artificial Intelligence. JAMA Network Open. 2024. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.38986
A balanced approach, leveraging both AI and non-AI strengths, may be the path forward in enhancing clinical intervention strategies effectively.
the study presents compelling insights into the effectiveness of ai versus non-ai early warning tools. it's interesting to see such variability and the call for regulatory oversight! how do you envision addressing these performance disparities?
Jan Beger, diving into ai's edge over traditional methods is crucial. transparency in these tools could make all the difference. what's your take on it?
Very informative
Interesting, thanks for sharing
Congratulation Cyndi, what an amazing accomplishment.
Insightful. Thanks for the share
Skin scientist going digital
4 周Hm, I may have missed it, but: Did they really not assess the outcomes by gender and ethnicity? The state the compositionof their sample in great detail, but then don‘t seem to mention any subgroups in the results and discussion part. I would find this somewhat disturbing, but as an interested layperson, my comment may just as well be completely off the mark. Any expert opinions here?