Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31677104›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020

A Gradient Boosting Machine Learning Model for Predicting Early Mortality in the Emergency Department Triage: Devising a Nine-Point Triage Score.

Maximiliano Klug, Yiftach Barash, Sigalit Bechler, Yehezkel S Resheff, Talia Tron, Avi Ironi, Shelly Soffer, Eyal Zimlichman, Eyal Klang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Moving towards the use of artificial intelligence in pain management.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A Machine Learning System to Automate Body Computed Tomography Protocoling.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Fast and interpretable mortality risk scores for critical care patients.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Maximiliano KlugDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging , The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Yiftach BarashDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging , The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Sigalit BechlerIntuit Israel©, Hod Hasharon, Israel.
Yehezkel S ResheffIntuit Israel©, Hod Hasharon, Israel.
Talia TronIntuit Israel©, Hod Hasharon, Israel.
Avi IroniSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Shelly SofferDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging , The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Eyal ZimlichmanSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Eyal KlangDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging , The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. eyalkla@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmergency departments (ED) are becoming increasingly overwhelmed, increasing poor outcomes. Triage scores aim to optimize the waiting time and prioritize the resource usage. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms offer advantages for creating predictive clinical applications.

objectiveEvaluate a state-of-the-art machine learning model for predicting mortality at the triage level and, by validating this automatic tool, improve the categorization of patients in the ED.

designAn institutional review board (IRB) approval was granted for this retrospective study. Information of consecutive adult patients (ages 18-100) admitted at the emergency department (ED) of one hospital were retrieved (January 1, 2012-December 31, 2018). Features included the following: demographics, admission date, arrival mode, referral code, chief complaint, previous ED visits, previous hospitalizations, comorbidities, home medications, vital signs, and Emergency Severity Index (ESI). The following outcomes were evaluated: early mortality (up to 2 days post ED registration) and short-term mortality (2-30 days post ED registration). A gradient boosting model was trained on data from years 2012-2017 and examined on data from the final year (2018). The area under the curve (AUC) for mortality prediction was used as an outcome metric. Single-variable analysis was conducted to develop a nine-point triage score for early mortality. KEY

resultsOverall, 799,522 ED visits were available for analysis. The early and short-term mortality rates were 0.6% and 2.5%, respectively. Models trained on the full set of features yielded an AUC of 0.962 for early mortality and 0.923 for short-term mortality. A model that utilized the nine features with the highest single-variable AUC scores (age, arrival mode, chief complaint, five primary vital signs, and ESI) yielded an AUC of 0.962 for early mortality.

conclusionThe gradient boosting model shows high predictive ability for screening patients at risk of early mortality utilizing data available at the time of triage in the ED.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceTriageAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEmergency Service, HospitalHospital MortalityHumansMachine LearningMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesYoung Adultearly mortalityemergency departmentgradient boostingmachine learningtriage

Identifiers

PMID31677104
PMCPMC6957629

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.