Mixed-Integer Optimization Approach to Learning Association Rules for Unplanned ICU Transfer

Che-Hung Tsai; Chun-An Chou; Qingtao Cao; Shao-Jen Weng

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Mixed-Integer Optimization Approach to Learning Association Rules for Unplanned ICU Transfer

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A mixed-integer optimizer can select short association rules that identify emergency-department patients at risk of unplanned ICU transfer with accuracy comparable to logistic regression and LASSO.

desk verdict A competent application paper that does something useful with interpretable rules for a real clinical problem, but the missing-lab-tests-as-negative coding is a genuine threat to the reported rules and AUCs. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00966 v1 pith:X45CMZA6 submitted 2019-08-02 cs.LG math.COstat.ML

Chun-An Chou , Qingtao Cao , Shao-Jen Weng , Che-Hung Tsai This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGmath.COstat.ML

keywords unplannedICUtransferemergencydepartmentassociationrulesmixed-integeroptimizationclinicaldecisionsupportrule-basedclassificationAUCevaluationpatientsubgroups

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that unplanned ICU transfers from the emergency department can be predicted by a small set of interpretable association rules chosen by a mixed-integer optimization program, called ARSOM. The rules are mined separately for four subgroups—infections, gastrointestinal disease, cardiovascular/respiratory disease, and neurological/other disease—so each subgroup gets its own symptom-to-outcome patterns rather than a one-size-fits-all regression. On 1,049 patients from a suburban teaching hospital, the rule sets achieve ten-times five-fold cross-validation AUCs of 0.62–0.76, with most subgroups above 0.7, comparable to logistic regression and LASSO and better than decision trees. If the claim holds, ED clinicians could use these short, confidence-weighted rules to flag patients at risk of deterioration within 48 hours and plan earlier ICU transfer.

What carries the argument

The central object is ARSOM, a two-phase mixed-integer optimization procedure for selecting association rules. Phase 1 uses the Apriori algorithm to enumerate candidate rules that meet minimum support, minimum confidence, and maximum length thresholds; Phase 2 solves a reduced 0-1 integer program that selects rules maximizing coverage of unplanned-transfer patients and minimizing coverage of controls, while keeping feature and rule counts small. The binary coverage matrix linking patients to rules is what makes a patient 'covered,' and each rule's confidence acts as a probability estimate: a patient is classified by the average confidence of the covering rules.

What would settle it

Concrete check: re-run ARSOM on the same cohort after re-coding unperformed laboratory tests as missing rather than negative, or measure those tests in a prospective sample of ED patients; if the chosen rules change substantially or the cross-validated AUC drops, then the reported accuracy was an artifact of the negative-coding assumption rather than of the rules' clinical signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ARSOM treats the prediction task as a supervised association-rule selection problem. Candidate rules are generated by the Apriori algorithm under minimum support $\theta_s = 0.01$, minimum confidence $\theta_c = 0.6$ or $0.7$, and maximum rule length $\theta_l = 4$; a reduced mixed-integer program then picks rules that cover as many unplanned-transfer patients as possible while covering as few non-transfer patients as possible, with penalties on the number of features and rules. The resulting decision model is a list of rules such as {Renal dysfunction} and {Liver cirrhosis history, SIRS}, each with reported confidence and lift for its subgroup. New patients are scored by the average confidence of the rules that cover them, and the ROC threshold is varied to produce AUC. The paper reports AUC of 0.76 for infections, 0.75 for gastrointestinal disease, 0.73 for neurological/other disease, and 0.62 for cardiovascular/respiratory disease, concluding the method is non-inferior to logistic regression and LASSO while offering interpretable subgroup-specific rules.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis rests on the retrospective binary feature matrix, and the load-bearing premise is that unperformed laboratory tests were coded as negative findings and that the study team's assignment of patients into four subgroups is correct; if missing tests were actually abnormal or subgroup labels misclassify patients, the learned rules and reported AUCs would not reflect true clinical risk.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Each subgroup gets a short list of rules (at most four features per rule) with confidence and lift, so a clinician can see which symptom combinations drive risk for that subgroup.
Cross-validated AUC is 0.76 for infections, 0.75 for gastrointestinal disease, 0.73 for neurological/other disease, and 0.73 for all patients combined—comparable to logistic regression and LASSO and better than decision trees in all four subgroups.
Because rules are confidence-weighted, a rule with confidence 0.75 gives a direct probability statement for a matching patient, which is easier to act on than a regression coefficient.
The method's output can be re-trained on new data, so the decision tool could be updated as more clinical records accumulate.
If applied prospectively, the rule sets could support earlier ICU transfer planning within the 48-hour window the study targets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

My inference: the expert-assigned subgroup split is doing much of the work; a natural extension is to let the optimization discover subgroups automatically, for example via clustering or a decision hierarchy, rather than using the four predefined reasons for ED visit.
My inference: since unperformed tests were coded negative, patients with more tests ordered are more likely to have rule features present; the method may implicitly learn 'test-ordering intensity' rather than pure physiology, so a useful check is to compare rule sets after restricting to features that are routinely measured.
My inference: the average-confidence scoring scheme means ARSOM could be used as a continuous risk score, not just a rule-based classifier; comparing it head-to-head with early-warning scores such as MEWS on the same cohort would show whether the rule score adds information beyond existing triage tools.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this is an application paper, not a new-method paper. The method is Apriori to generate candidate association rules, then a mixed-integer program to select a compact set of rules that cover positive patients and penalize negative coverage. That combination is reasonable and fits the clinical goal of getting interpretable, subgroup-specific rules. The novelty is in the application to unplanned ICU transfer from the ED, not in the optimization machinery.

What the paper does well: the problem is clearly described, the four patient subgroups are clinically sensible, and the evaluation is honest enough. They use 10x5-fold CV, report AUC with standard deviations, and compare against LR, LASSO, and DT. The rules in Tables 3-7 are plausible and easy for a clinician to read. The limitations section is unusually candid: they acknowledge single-center retrospective data, chart-review inaccuracy, and inconsistent criteria for ordering examinations. The citation pattern looks normal; they cite their own earlier clinical work where relevant, and that is legitimate.

The soft spots are real. The biggest one is Section 4.1: unperformed lab tests were coded as negative. For features like renal dysfunction, liver dysfunction, and abnormal WBC counts, this conflates 'not measured' with 'normal.' In emergency medicine, test ordering is driven by clinical suspicion, so missingness is informative. That means some high-confidence rules may really be proxies for workup intensity, and the AUC estimates may be optimistic even though the held-out folds prevent direct circularity. The authors even concede the mechanism in their limitations statement. This is not a minor quibble; it affects the validity of the rules and the generalization of the accuracy claims.

Other issues are smaller. The per-subgroup confidence thresholds in Table 2 were adjusted after looking at the data to include more rule candidates, so the reported performance is mildly tuned. The weight lambda is described only as 'relatively large,' so the objective's exact trade-off is unspecified. The 'non-inferior' claim about AUC is not backed by a statistical test. No code or data are released, which limits reproducibility.

Who is this for? A reader interested in interpretable clinical decision support will get value from the framing and the rules, especially the subgroup-specific findings. A reader looking for methodological advances should look elsewhere. It deserves a serious referee, but the missingness issue needs to be addressed directly, either with sensitivity analysis or a clear argument that the coding assumption is clinically acceptable in this dataset. I would send it out, with a referee who understands clinical data preprocessing.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ARSOM, a two-phase rule-learning method for predicting unplanned ICU transfer from ED admission. Phase 1 uses the Apriori algorithm to generate candidate association rules satisfying user-specified minimum support, confidence, and rule-length thresholds; Phase 2 solves a mixed-integer program that selects a parsimonious set of rules maximizing coverage of positive (unplanned transfer) patients while minimizing coverage of negative patients. The method is applied to a retrospective dataset of 1049 patients from a Taiwanese teaching hospital, divided into four clinical subgroups and an all-patient group. The authors report discovered rules with support, confidence, and lift, and compare classification performance (AUC) against logistic regression, LASSO, and decision trees using 10 times 5-fold cross-validation, concluding that ARSOM is comparable to state-of-the-art methods while providing interpretable symptom-outcome rules.

Significance. If the empirical claims are valid, the paper makes a modest but useful contribution: it demonstrates a principled way to combine association-rule mining with optimization-based rule selection, producing transparent rules rather than a single regression equation, and it evaluates these rules on a clinically relevant outcome. Strengths include the use of held-out cross-validation for AUC estimation, comparison with three standard classifiers, and the interpretable rule tables with support/confidence/lift. However, no code or data are provided, and the central empirical claims rest on a data-encoding assumption and on several under-specified modeling choices. The clinical application is meaningful, and the two-phase decomposition is a sensible scaling strategy, but the validity of the reported rules and AUC values needs to be established more carefully.

major comments (4)

[§4.1 (also §5)] The binary feature matrix encodes unperformed laboratory tests as negative ('results of tests were considered to be negative in our study if they were not ordered'). This is load-bearing for the central claim because many features that drive the reported rules—renal dysfunction, liver dysfunction, hematological dysfunction, metabolic dysfunction, abnormal WBC counts, and components of SIRS—are laboratory-based. In emergency practice, test ordering is driven by clinical suspicion, so an unperformed test is informative about workup intensity rather than evidence of normalcy. The coding therefore conflates 'not measured' with 'normal,' can create spurious high-confidence rules for features that are really proxies for receiving a workup, biases the support/confidence/lift values in Tables 3–7, and makes the AUC estimates in Table 8 difficult to transport to settings with different ordering practices. Section 5 itself concedes 'inconsistent criteria for ordering certain examinations,' which is precisely the mechanism that makes the coding rule unsafe. The authors should justify the coding clinically or, more convincingly, re-run the analysis with missing indicators or complete-case sensitivity analyses and report how many of the 30 features are affected by this coding.
[§3.3 and §4.2] The objective weights are not specified consistently. Section 3.3 states 'all the parameters are set to one,' but Section 4.2 states that λ is 'a relatively large number in order to ensure all target patients to be covered by selected rules in the model.' Since λ in Eq. (2) directly trades positive coverage against parsimony and negative coverage, the reported rules and AUC depend on its value, yet the paper never reports it. In addition, the confidence threshold θc is set to 0.7 for subgroup 1 and the all-patient group but to 0.6 for the other subgroups 'since we want to include more strong association rule candidates' (Section 4.2, Table 2). This is a data-dependent tuning choice made after inspecting the data, and no nested validation or sensitivity analysis is provided for it. The authors should report the exact λ, provide a sensitivity analysis over λ and θc, and explain how the per-subgroup thresholds were chosen without using the test folds.
[§3.4, §4.3, and Table 8] The cross-validation protocol is under-specified. It is not stated whether, within each of the 10×5 folds, the Apriori candidate generation and the ARSOM-R selection are re-run on the training folds only, or whether the rule sets in Tables 3–7 (which appear to be fit on the full subgroups) are applied to held-out data. It is also not stated how a test patient who is not covered by any selected rule is scored when computing the average probability Pa, nor how the ROC threshold θp is handled. These details are necessary to determine whether the AUC values in Table 8 are honest out-of-sample estimates or are contaminated by rules selected on the full data. The authors should specify the exact cross-validation procedure, including how rules are generated and selected in each fold.
[§4.3 and Table 8] The claim that ARSOM is 'comparable' or 'non-inferior' to LR and LASSO is not supported by any statistical test. The reported means and standard deviations overlap substantially (e.g., subgroup 2: ARSOM 0.75±0.03 versus LASSO 0.76±0.01; subgroup 3: ARSOM 0.62±0.03 versus LR 0.58±0.02), and the 10×5 CV folds are not independent. A paired test across folds (e.g., DeLong's test for AUC or a paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test) should be reported before making a non-inferiority claim. Similarly, the word 'significant' for the association rules in Section 4.2 is used without any statistical significance test or confidence intervals for support, confidence, or lift.

minor comments (6)

[§4.2] Section 4.2 says 'diﬀerent conference thresholds θc = 0.07 for subgroup 1 and allgroup versus θc = 0.06,' but Table 2 reports 0.7 and 0.6; the decimal values should be corrected.
[Table 1] Index 17 in Table 1 labels the feature 'Hypertension,' but every rule table and the text use 'Hypotension' (e.g., Table 3, Table 4, Table 7). This is more than a typo because hypotension is the relevant organ-dysfunction criterion, and hypertension is already listed as Index 3.
[Equation (2)] Equation (2) contains the malformed sums '∑_{i=∈|I|^-}' and '∑_{i=∈|I|^+}'; these should be ∑_{i∈I^-} and ∑_{i∈I^+}.
[Table 7] Table 7 lists the rule {Liver dysfunction}∨{Hematological dysfunction} twice (rows 3 and 7) with different support/confidence values; one of these entries is likely a different rule and should be corrected.
[§2.1 and Acknowledgment] The data source is inconsistent: Section 2.1 describes a suburban teaching hospital in Taichung and the corresponding author affiliation is Taichung Veterans General Hospital Puli Branch, while the Acknowledgment thanks Cheng-Ching General Hospital in Taichung for data collection; please clarify which institution provided the data.
[Tables 3–7] The paper should state explicitly whether support, confidence, and lift are computed on the full subgroup data, on training folds, or on held-out data; the current presentation is ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central AUC claims are validated on held-out folds, and the rule statistics are empirical rather than fitted constants.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than self-referential. ARSOM is a mixed-integer program (Eq. 2-9) whose inputs are the binary feature matrix and user-set thresholds θs, θc, and θl; candidate rules are generated by Apriori in Phase 1 and selected by ARSOM-R in Phase 2. The support, confidence, and lift values reported in Tables 3-7 are descriptive properties of the discovered rules, not parameters fitted so that the reported AUC would match a target. The central performance claim is tested by an explicit out-of-sample procedure: the paper states 'we implement a out-of-sample validation using 10 times 5-fold cross validation' and compares ARSOM AUC with logistic regression, LASSO, and decision trees in Table 8 and Figure 4. The AUC therefore does not reduce by construction to any term of the objective function or to any fitted constant. The only author self-citations, Refs. [4] and [5], are used as background evidence that unplanned ICU transfer is a recognized risk-factor problem; the ARSOM formulation does not depend on those papers for its correctness or for the evaluation. The coding rule in Section 4.1 that unperformed laboratory tests 'were considered to be negative' and the Section 5 admission of 'inconsistent criteria for ordering certain examinations' are genuine data-validity threats, but they concern whether the features reflect clinical truth, not whether the derivation is equivalent to its own inputs. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entity, force, or conserved quantity is introduced. The free parameters are the support, confidence, and length thresholds for rule generation plus the objective weights, several of which are tuned per subgroup or left underspecified. The axioms are standard domain assumptions about the clinical data, the Apriori search space, and the chosen objective weights. The paper is an empirical application of known optimization and data mining components.

free parameters (4)

minimum support theta_s = 0.01
Minimum support threshold for rule candidates, set uniformly across all patient groups in Table 2.
minimum confidence theta_c = 0.7 for subgroup 1 and all; 0.6 for subgroups 2, 3, 4
Confidence threshold for rule candidates; adjusted per subgroup in Section 4.2 'since we want to include more strong association rule candidates', a data-dependent choice.
maximum rule length theta_l = 4
Limits the maximum number of diagnostic features in a rule to maintain interpretability, set in Section 4.2.
objective weights alpha, beta, gamma, lambda = alpha=beta=gamma=1; lambda 'relatively large', exact value not reported
Weights in the ARSOM objective control the trade-off between model complexity, negative coverage penalty, and positive coverage reward. Section 3.3 states lambda is large to ensure all target patients are covered, but the specific value is not given.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The retrospective chart-review cohort from a single suburban teaching hospital is accurately labeled and representative.
All conclusions are drawn from 1,049 patients at one hospital (Section 2.1). The authors themselves note in Section 5 that generalization is considerably limited.
domain assumption Unperformed or missing laboratory tests are treated as negative findings.
Section 4.1 states 'results of tests were considered to be negative in our study if they were not ordered', which can systematically bias the feature matrix.
ad hoc to paper The Apriori-generated candidate rules with thresholds theta_s, theta_c, theta_l contain an optimal rule set for the MIP.
The two-phase heuristic restricts the MIP search to rules that pass the pre-specified thresholds; any optimal rule outside these thresholds is excluded by design (Section 3.3).
ad hoc to paper The objective weights alpha=beta=gamma=1 and large lambda reflect clinical decision preferences.
Section 3.3 states these values are chosen 'based on the idea' of covering significant cases with a compact model, not derived from clinician input or a formal trade-off analysis.
domain assumption The four patient subgroups are mutually exclusive and clinically coherent.
Patients are split by principal reason for ED visit (infections, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular/respiratory, neurological/other). Misclassification across these groups would change the learned rules; the assignment criteria are described in Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mixed-Integer Optimization Approach to Learning Association Rules for Unplanned ICU Transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X45CMZA6

@misc{pith2026190800966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mixed-Integer Optimization Approach to Learning Association Rules for Unplanned ICU Transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X45CMZA6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00966}
}

read the original abstract

After admission to emergency department (ED), patients with critical illnesses are transferred to intensive care unit (ICU) due to unexpected clinical deterioration occurrence. Identifying such unplanned ICU transfers is urgently needed for medical physicians to achieve two-fold goals: improving critical care quality and preventing mortality. A priority task is to understand the crucial rationale behind diagnosis results of individual patients during stay in ED, which helps prepare for an early transfer to ICU. Most existing prediction studies were based on univariate analysis or multiple logistic regression to provide one-size-fit-all results. However, patient condition varying from case to case may not be accurately examined by the only judgment. In this study, we present a new decision tool using a mathematical optimization approach aiming to automatically discover rules associating diagnostic features with high-risk outcome (i.e., unplanned transfers) in different deterioration scenarios. We consider four mutually exclusive patient subgroups based on the principal reasons of ED visits: infections, cardiovascular/respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal diseases, and neurological/other diseases at a suburban teaching hospital. The analysis results demonstrate significant rules associated with unplanned transfer outcome for each subgroups and also show comparable prediction accuracy, compared to state-of-the-art machine learning methods while providing easy-to-interpret symptom-outcome information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00966 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** An illustrative example of data representation. The matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** An illustration of association rules discovered by ARSOM for the subgroup 4 with neurological and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: AUC Performance of ARSOM in a comparison with LR, LASSO, and DT for the four patient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

S. R. Bapoje, J. L. Gaudiani, V. Narayanan, R. K. Albert, Unplanned transfers to a medical intensive care unit: Causes and relationship to preventable errors in care, Journal of Hospital Medicine 6 (2) (2011) 68–72

work page 2011
[2]

A. L. Shiloh, L. A. Eisen, R. H. Savel, The unplanned intensive care unit admission, Journal of Critical Care 30 (2) (2015) 419–420

work page 2015
[3]

H. K. Simpson, M. Clancy, C. Goldfrad, K. Rowan, Admissions to intensive care units from emergency departments: a descriptive study, Emergency Medicine Journal 22 (6) (2005) 423–428

work page 2005
[4]

J. C.-H. Tsai, S.-J. Weng, C.-Y. Huang, D. H.-T. Yen, H.-L. Chen, Feasibility of using the predisposition, insult/infection, physiological response, and organ dysfunction concept of sepsis to predict the risk of deterioration and unplanned intensive care unit transfer after emergency department admission, Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 77 (3) ...

work page 2014
[5]

J. C.-H. Tsai, C.-W. Cheng, S.-J. Weng, C.-Y. Huang, D. H.-T. Yen, H.-L. Chen, Comparison of risks factors for unplanned icu transfer after ed admission in patients with infections and those without infections, The Scientiﬁc World Journal (2014) 102–929

work page 2014
[6]

M. K. Delgado, V. Liu, J. M. Pines, P. Kipnis, M. N. Gardner, G. J. Escobar, Risk factors for unplanned transfer to intensive care within 24 hours of admission from the emergency department in an integrated healthcare system, Journal of Hospital Medicine 8 (1) (2013) 13–19

work page 2013
[7]

V. Liu, P. Kipnis, N. W. Rizk, G. J. Escobar, Adverse outcomes associated with delayed intensive care unit transfers in an integrated healthcare system, Journal of Hospital Medicine 7 (3) (2012) 224–230

work page 2012
[8]

S. A. Frost, E. Alexandrou, T. Bogdanovski, Y. Salamonson, M. J.Parr, K. M. Hillman, Unplanned ad- mission to intensive care after emergency hospitalisation: Risk factors and development of a nomogram for individualising risk, Resuscitation 80 (2) (2009) 224–230

work page 2009

Show all 28 references

[9]

C. M. Dahn, A. T. Manasco, A. H. Breaud, S. Kim, N. Rumas, O. Moin, P. M. Mitchell, K. P. Nelson, W. Baker, J. A. Feldman, A critical analysis of unplanned icu transfer within 48 hours from ed admission as a quality measure, The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 34 (8) (2...

2016
[10]

L. M. Boerma, E. P. Reijners, R. A. Hessels, M. A. v Hooft, Risk factors for unplanned transfer to the intensive care unit after emergency department admission, The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 35 (8) (2017) 1154–1158

2017
[11]

W. A. Knaus, E. A. Draper, D. P. Wagner, J. E. Zimmerman, APACHE II: a severity of disease classiﬁcation system, Critical care medicine 13 (10) (1985) 818–829

1985
[12]

Le Gall, S

J.-R. Le Gall, S. Lemeshow, F. Saulnier, A new simpliﬁed acute physiology score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study, The Journal of the American Medical Association 270 (24) (1993) 2957–2963

1993
[13]

Vincent, A

J.-L. Vincent, A. De Mendon¸ ca, F. Cantraine, R. Moreno, J. Takala, P. M. Suter, C. L. Sprung, F. Colardyn, S. Blecher, Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study, Critical ca...

1998
[14]

Vincent, R

J.-L. Vincent, R. Moreno, Clinical review: Scoring systems in the critically ill, Critical Care 14 (2) (2010) 207

2010
[15]

P.-N. Tan, M. Steinbach, V. Kumar, Association analysis: basic concepts and algorithms, Introduction to data mining (2005) 327–414

2005
[16]

Agrawal, et al., Fast algorithms for mining association rules, in: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on very large data bases, Vol

R. Agrawal, et al., Fast algorithms for mining association rules, in: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on very large data bases, Vol. 1215, 1994, pp. 487–499

1994
[17]

C. C. Aggarwal, P. S. Yu, Mining large itemsets for association rules, Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Comittee on Data Engineering 21 (1998) 23–31

1998
[18]

Hahsler, S

M. Hahsler, S. Chelluboina, K. Hornik, C. Buchta, The arules r-package ecosystem: Analyzing in- 18 teresting patterns from large transaction data sets, Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011) 2021–2025

2011
[19]

E.Charlson, P

M. E.Charlson, P. Pompei, K. L. Ales, C. MacKenzie, A new method of classifying prognostic comor- bidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation, Journal of Chronic Diseases 40 (5) (1987) 373–383

1987
[20]

Safar, Cerebral resuscitation after cardiac arrest: Summaries and suggestions, The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 1 (2) (1983) 198–214

P. Safar, Cerebral resuscitation after cardiac arrest: Summaries and suggestions, The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 1 (2) (1983) 198–214

1983
[21]

T. M. Osborn, H. B. Nguyen, E. P. Rivers, Emergency medicine and the surviving sepsis campaign: an international approach to managing severe sepsis and septic shock, Annals of Emergency Medicine 46 (3) (2005) 228–231

2005
[22]

C. P. Subbe, M. Kruger, P. Rutherford, L. Gemmel, Validation of a modiﬁed early warning score in medical admissions, Quarterly Journal of Medicine 94 (10) (2001) 521–526

2001
[23]

J. D. Groarke, J. Gallagher, J. Stack, A. Aftab, C. Dwyer, R. McGovern, G. Courtney, Use of an admis- sion early warning score to predict patient morbidity and mortality and treatment success, Emergency Medicine Journal 25 (12) (2008) 803–806

2008
[24]

Bellomo, D

R. Bellomo, D. Goldsmith, S. Uchino, J. Buckmaster, G. K. Hart, H. Opdam, W. Silvester, L. Doolan, G. Gutteridge, A prospective before-and-after trial of a medical emergency team, Medical Journal of Australia 179 (6) (2003) 283–287

2003
[25]

D. W. Hosmer, S. Lemeshow, Applied logistic regression, John Wiley & Sons, 1989

1989
[26]

Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

R. Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) (1996) 267–288

1996
[27]

H. Zou, T. Hastie, Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 67 (2) (2005) 301–320

2005
[28]

J. R. Quinlan, C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning, Morgan Kaufmann, 1993. 19

1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

S. R. Bapoje, J. L. Gaudiani, V. Narayanan, R. K. Albert, Unplanned transfers to a medical intensive care unit: Causes and relationship to preventable errors in care, Journal of Hospital Medicine 6 (2) (2011) 68–72

work page 2011

[2] [2]

A. L. Shiloh, L. A. Eisen, R. H. Savel, The unplanned intensive care unit admission, Journal of Critical Care 30 (2) (2015) 419–420

work page 2015

[3] [3]

H. K. Simpson, M. Clancy, C. Goldfrad, K. Rowan, Admissions to intensive care units from emergency departments: a descriptive study, Emergency Medicine Journal 22 (6) (2005) 423–428

work page 2005

[4] [4]

J. C.-H. Tsai, S.-J. Weng, C.-Y. Huang, D. H.-T. Yen, H.-L. Chen, Feasibility of using the predisposition, insult/infection, physiological response, and organ dysfunction concept of sepsis to predict the risk of deterioration and unplanned intensive care unit transfer after emergency department admission, Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 77 (3) ...

work page 2014

[5] [5]

J. C.-H. Tsai, C.-W. Cheng, S.-J. Weng, C.-Y. Huang, D. H.-T. Yen, H.-L. Chen, Comparison of risks factors for unplanned icu transfer after ed admission in patients with infections and those without infections, The Scientiﬁc World Journal (2014) 102–929

work page 2014

[6] [6]

M. K. Delgado, V. Liu, J. M. Pines, P. Kipnis, M. N. Gardner, G. J. Escobar, Risk factors for unplanned transfer to intensive care within 24 hours of admission from the emergency department in an integrated healthcare system, Journal of Hospital Medicine 8 (1) (2013) 13–19

work page 2013

[7] [7]

V. Liu, P. Kipnis, N. W. Rizk, G. J. Escobar, Adverse outcomes associated with delayed intensive care unit transfers in an integrated healthcare system, Journal of Hospital Medicine 7 (3) (2012) 224–230

work page 2012

[8] [8]

S. A. Frost, E. Alexandrou, T. Bogdanovski, Y. Salamonson, M. J.Parr, K. M. Hillman, Unplanned ad- mission to intensive care after emergency hospitalisation: Risk factors and development of a nomogram for individualising risk, Resuscitation 80 (2) (2009) 224–230

work page 2009