Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30321231›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2018

Validation of deep-learning-based triage and acuity score using a large national dataset.

Joon-Myoung Kwon, Youngnam Lee, Yeha Lee, Seungwoo Lee, Hyunho Park, Jinsik Park

Abstract readObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Joon-Myoung KwonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mediplex Sejong Hospital, Incheon, Korea.
Youngnam LeeVUNO, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8295-1915
Yeha LeeVUNO, Seoul, Korea.
Seungwoo LeeVUNO, Seoul, Korea.
Hyunho ParkVUNO, Seoul, Korea.
Jinsik ParkDepartment of Cardiology, Mediplex Sejong Hospital, Incheon, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTriage is important in identifying high-risk patients amongst many less urgent patients as emergency department (ED) overcrowding has become a national crisis recently. This study aims to validate that a Deep-learning-based Triage and Acuity Score (DTAS) identifies high-risk patients more accurately than existing triage and acuity scores using a large national dataset.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using data from the Korean National Emergency Department Information System (NEDIS), which collected data on visits in real time from 151 EDs. The NEDIS data was split into derivation data (January 2014-June 2016) and validation data (July-December 2016). We also used data from the Sejong General Hospital (SGH) for external validation (January-December 2017). We predicted in-hospital mortality, critical care, and hospitalization using initial information of ED patients (age, sex, chief complaint, time from symptom onset to ED visit, arrival mode, trauma, initial vital signs and mental status as predictor variables).

resultsA total of 11,656,559 patients were included in this study. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) and Area Under the Precision and Recall Curve (AUPRC) of DTAS were 0.935 and 0.264. It significantly outperformed Korean triage and acuity score (AUROC:0.785, AUPRC:0.192), modified early warning score (AUROC:0.810, AUPRC:0.116), logistic regression (AUROC:0.903, AUPRC:0.209), and random forest (AUROC:0.910, AUPRC:0.179).

conclusionDeep-learning-based Triage and Acuity Score predicted in-hospital mortality, critical care, and hospitalization more accurately than existing triages and acuity, and it was validated using a large, multicenter dataset.

Indexed as

Deep LearningEmergency Service, HospitalSeverity of Illness IndexAdultAgedArea Under CurveCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualEmergency MedicineFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRepublic of Korea

Identifiers

PMID30321231
PMCPMC6188844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.