Integrating Laboratory Data and Continuous Telemonitoring to Improve Early Warning Scores
Jerry, E. E.; Bakkes, T. H. G. F.; Schonck, F.; Deneer, R.; Bouwman, A. R. A.; Nienhuijs, S. W.
Show abstract
BackgroundEarly Warning Scores (EWS) are widely implemented to identify clinical deterioration in hospitalized patients. However, their accuracy remains limited by intermittent vital sign measurements and high false-positive rates. Continuous monitoring with wearable sensors offers more timely detection, and integrating laboratory parameters may further enhance predictive precision. This study evaluated whether combining continuous vital sign monitoring with routine laboratory tests improves the prediction of postoperative complications compared with standard EWS approaches. MethodsAll adult patients admitted in 2023 to the surgical oncology ward of Catharina Hospital Eindhoven who underwent monitoring with a wireless accelerometer patch were included. Continuous heart and respiratory rate data were combined with laboratory parameters, including C-reactive protein (CRP) and leukocyte count. Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo [≥] II) were identified by chart review. Logistic regression was used to identify significant predictors and to construct the CLUE model (Combining Labdata Upgrading Early warning scores). Model performance was compared with the Continuous Remote Early Warning Score (CREWS) using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). ResultsThe final dataset included 198 complete observations from 155 patients. Heart rate, CRP, and leukocyte count were independently associated with postoperative complications. The CLUE model achieved an AUC of 0.71 (0.60-0.80) outperforming the CREWS model (AUC 0.57 (0.50-0.63)). ConclusionIntegrating laboratory data with continuous vital sign monitoring improved the discrimination of postoperative complications compared with vital sign based EWS alone. The CLUE model represents a clinically interpretable step toward more precise, multimodal early warning systems.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- On the predictability of postoperative complications for cancer patients: a Portuguese cohort study 95%
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 95%
- OASIS+: leveraging machine learning to improve the prognostic accuracy of OASIS severity score for predicting in-hospital mortality 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Hospital Mortality in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients 94%
- Development of a Risk Prediction Model for Sepsis-Related Delirium Based on Multiple Machine Learning Approaches and an Online Calculator 94%
- A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of digital Early Warning Score (NEWS2) in a cardiac specialist setting: retrospective cohort study 94%
- Development and validation of automated computer aided-risk score for predicting the risk of in-hospital mortality using first electronically recorded blood test results and vital signs for COVID-19 hospital admissions: a retrospective development and validation study 94%
- Use of the first National Early Warning Score recorded within 24 hours of admission to estimate the risk of in-hospital mortality in unplanned COVID-19 patients: a retrospective cohort study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Using Automated-Machine Learning to Predict COVID-19 Patient Survival: Identify Influential Biomarkers 94%
- Empirical Sample Size Determination for Popular Classification Algorithms in Clinical Research 92%
- Distinguishing Admissions Specifically for COVID-19 from Incidental SARS-CoV-2 Admissions: A National Retrospective EHR Study 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.