Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30353271›Full record

ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2019

Artificial neural networks and risk stratification in emergency departments.

Greta Falavigna, Giorgio Costantino, Raffaello Furlan, James V Quinn, Andrea Ungar, Roberto Ippoliti

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Phased genome sequence of an interspecific hybrid flowering cherry, 'Somei-Yoshino' (Cerasus × yedoensis).DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2019
    Article
  18. 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.

Greta FalavignaCNR-IRCrES, Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth, Moncalieri, Italy. greta.falavigna@ircres.cnr.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6616-8397
Giorgio CostantinoClinical Medicine Department, Fondazione IRCCS, Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Raffaello FurlanDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.
James V QuinnDivision of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Andrea UngarSyncope Unit, Geriatric Medicine and Cardiology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Roberto IppolitiDepartment of Management, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emergency departments are characterized by the need for quick diagnosis under pressure. To select the most appropriate treatment, a series of rules to support decision-making has been offered by scientific societies. The effectiveness of these rules affects the appropriateness of treatment and the hospitalization of patients. Analyzing a sample of 1844 patients and focusing on the decision to hospitalize a patient after a syncope event to prevent severe short-term outcomes, this work proposes a new algorithm based on neural networks. Artificial neural networks are a non-parametric technique with the well-known ability to generalize behaviors, and they can thus predict severe short-term outcomes with pre-selected levels of sensitivity and specificity. This innovative technique can outperform the traditional models, since it does not require a specific functional form, i.e., the data are not supposed to be distributed following a specific design. Based on our results, the innovative model can predict hospitalization with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 79%, significantly increasing the appropriateness of medical treatment and, as a result, hospital efficiency. According to Garson's Indexes, the most significant variables are exertion, the absence of symptoms, and the patient's gender. On the contrary, cardio-vascular history, hypertension, and age have the lowest impact on the determination of the subject's health status. The main application of this new technology is the adoption of smart solutions (e.g., a mobile app) to customize the stratification of patients admitted to emergency departments (ED)s after a syncope event. Indeed, the adoption of these smart solutions gives the opportunity to customize risk stratification according to the specific clinical case (i.e., the patient's health status) and the physician's decision-making process (i.e., the desired levels of sensitivity and specificity). Moreover, a decision-making process based on these smart solutions might ensure a more effective use of available resources, improving the management of syncope patients and reducing the cost of inappropriate treatment and hospitalization.

Indexed as

Nerve NetDecision Support TechniquesEmergency Service, HospitalHealth PrioritiesHospitalizationHumansInventionsLogistic ModelsPrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificitySeverity of Illness IndexSyncopeArtificial neural networks (ANNs)Decision processesEmergency departments (ERs)Risk stratificationSyncope

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.