AgileMD vs Bayesian Health
The two best evidenced deterioration vendors in the index, competing on different definitions of proof. AgileMD's eCART is FDA cleared with a named model class, a narrow indication limited to adult ward patients, more than fifty publications since 2012, and the only race stratified performance disclosure in this category. Bayesian Health has three large prospective multi site cohort studies with a major academic health system, which is the harder study design to run, and it extended beyond sepsis into deterioration, pressure injuries and transitions of care. AgileMD is the safer answer for a quality committee that wants a regulated device with a published fairness analysis. Bayesian is the stronger answer for a system that wants one model layer across several risks and cares more about prospective evidence than about clearance. Ask both for alerts per patient day before anything else.
- The cleared indication is precise and narrow, hospitalised ward patients aged 18 and over, and the oversight constraint is written into the clearance rather than into marketing copy.
- Race stratified performance published by the vendor, which nothing else in this category has done, alongside more than fifty peer reviewed publications and twenty named health system deployments.
- The model class is named in the regulatory filing, so a buyer knows what kind of system is producing the score rather than being told it is proprietary.
- Three large prospective multi site cohort studies with a major academic health system, which is a different and in some respects stronger evidence design than retrospective validation, and it is the strongest such base in this index.
- It configured beyond sepsis into clinical deterioration, pressure injuries, palliative care and transitions of care, so one integration serves several risk questions rather than one.
- It engaged with the response problem directly, treating whether clinicians act on an alert as part of the system, which is the failure mode this category actually dies from.
Side by Side
| Axis | A AgileMD |
B Bayesian Health |
|---|---|---|
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| Model and Technology Transparency | ||
| Clinical and Operational Evidence | ||
| AI Safety and PHI Stewardship | ||
| HIPAA and BAA Posture | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
| FDA and Regulatory Status | ||
| AI Governance and Bias Disclosure | ||
| EHR and Interoperability Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Setting and Specialty Coverage |
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Inpatient Deterioration & Risk Monitoring page.
The regulatory positions differ and buyers should not read them as equivalent: eCART holds a 510(k) clearance with a defined indication, while Bayesian Health's regulatory position rests on operating outside device requirements rather than on an authorisation. Bayesian Health publishes no security attestation, no trust centre, no business associate posture, no hosting or residency terms and no pricing, which is a real diligence gap alongside an exceptional clinical record.
AgileMD's SOC 2 claim does not specify its type. Neither vendor publishes a false alert rate expressed per patient day, which is the number that determines whether either system survives contact with a working ward.