Background: Early warning systems lack robust evidence that they improve patients' outcomes, possibly because of their limitation of predicting binary rather than time-to-event outcomes.
Objectives: To compare the prediction accuracy of 2 statistical modeling strategies (logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression) and 2 machine learning strategies (random forest and random survival forest) for in-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest.
Methods: Retrospective cohort study with prediction model development from deidentified electronic health records at an urban academic medical center.
Results: The classification models (logistic regression and random forest) had statistical recall and precision similar to or greater than those of the time-to-event models (Cox proportional hazards regression and random survival forest). However, the time-to-event models provided predictions that could potentially better indicate to clinicians whether and when a patient is likely to experience cardiopulmonary arrest.
Conclusions: As early warning scoring systems are refined, they must use the best analytical methods that both model the underlying phenomenon and provide an understandable prediction.
©2018 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.