Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30646206›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Clinical Outcomes for Children During Emergency Department Triage.

Tadahiro Goto, Carlos A Camargo, Mohammad Kamal Faridi, Robert J Freishtat, Kohei Hasegawa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 131 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
131citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
36.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

131 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 269 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  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. The 'Hippocratic Oath' for AI-based clinical decision support systems.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

71 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tadahiro GotoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Carlos A CamargoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Mohammad Kamal FaridiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Robert J FreishtatDivision of Emergency Medicine, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC.
Kohei HasegawaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Harvard University · USGeorge Washington University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: While machine learning approaches may enhance prediction ability, little is known about their utility in emergency department (ED) triage. Objectives: To examine the performance of machine learning approaches to predict clinical outcomes and disposition in children in the ED and to compare their performance with conventional triage approaches. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prognostic study of ED data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2015. A nationally representative sample of 52 037 children aged 18 years or younger who presented to the ED were included. Data analysis was performed in August 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes were critical care (admission to an intensive care unit and/or in-hospital death) and hospitalization (direct hospital admission or transfer). In the training set (70% random sample), using routinely available triage data as predictors (eg, demographic characteristics and vital signs), we derived 4 machine learning-based models: lasso regression, random forest, gradient-boosted decision tree, and deep neural network. In the test set (the remaining 30% of the sample), we measured the models' prediction performance by computing C statistics, prospective prediction results, and decision curves. These machine learning models were built for each outcome and compared with the reference model using the conventional triage classification information. Results: Of 52 037 eligible ED visits by children (median [interquartile range] age, 6 [2-14] years; 24 929 [48.0%] female), 163 (0.3%) had the critical care outcome and 2352 (4.5%) had the hospitalization outcome. For the critical care prediction, all machine learning approaches had higher discriminative ability compared with the reference model, although the difference was not statistically significant (eg, C statistics of 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78-0.92] for the deep neural network vs 0.78 [95% CI, 0.71-0.85] for the reference; P = .16), and lower number of undertriaged critically ill children in the conventional triage levels 3 to 5 (urgent to nonurgent). For the hospitalization prediction, all machine learning approaches had significantly higher discrimination ability (eg, C statistic, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.78-0.81] for the deep neural network vs 0.73 [95% CI, 0.71-0.75] for the reference; P < .001) and fewer overtriaged children who did not require inpatient management in the conventional triage levels 1 to 3 (immediate to urgent). The decision curve analysis demonstrated a greater net benefit of machine learning models over ranges of clinical thresholds. Conclusions and Relevance: Machine learning-based triage had better discrimination ability to predict clinical outcomes and disposition, with reduction in undertriaging critically ill children and overtriaging children who are less ill.

Indexed as

Critical CareMachine LearningAdolescentChildChild, HospitalizedChild, PreschoolCritical Care OutcomesEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleModels, EducationalPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID30646206
PMCPMC6484561
OpenAlexW2909953525

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.