Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31834920›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

A validation of machine learning-based risk scores in the prehospital setting.

Douglas Spangler, Thomas Hermansson, David Smekal, Hans Blomberg

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04757194 (Machine Learning Assisted Differentiation of Low Acuity Patients at Dispatch), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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.

NCT04757194 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Machine Learning Assisted Differentiation of Low Acuity Patients at Dispatch: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUppsala University HospitalRan2021 to 2024Enrolled2,499ConditionsEmergenciesArmsopenTriage - Alitis algorithm
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Use of artificial intelligence to support prehospital traumatic injury care: A scoping review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Development of outcomes for evaluating emergency care triage: a Delphi approach.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  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

4 authors.

Douglas SpanglerUppsala Center for Prehospital Research, Department of Surgical Sciences-Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6775-5051
Thomas HermanssonUppsala Ambulance Service, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
David SmekalUppsala Center for Prehospital Research, Department of Surgical Sciences-Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Hans BlombergUppsala Center for Prehospital Research, Department of Surgical Sciences-Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe triage of patients in prehospital care is a difficult task, and improved risk assessment tools are needed both at the dispatch center and on the ambulance to differentiate between low- and high-risk patients. This study validates a machine learning-based approach to generating risk scores based on hospital outcomes using routinely collected prehospital data.

methodsDispatch, ambulance, and hospital data were collected in one Swedish region from 2016-2017. Dispatch center and ambulance records were used to develop gradient boosting models predicting hospital admission, critical care (defined as admission to an intensive care unit or in-hospital mortality), and two-day mortality. Composite risk scores were generated based on the models and compared to National Early Warning Scores (NEWS) and actual dispatched priorities in a prospectively gathered dataset from 2018.

resultsA total of 38203 patients were included from 2016-2018. Concordance indexes (or areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve) for dispatched priorities ranged from 0.51-0.66, while those for NEWS ranged from 0.66-0.85. Concordance ranged from 0.70-0.79 for risk scores based only on dispatch data, and 0.79-0.89 for risk scores including ambulance data. Dispatch data-based risk scores consistently outperformed dispatched priorities in predicting hospital outcomes, while models including ambulance data also consistently outperformed NEWS. Model performance in the prospective test dataset was similar to that found using cross-validation, and calibration was comparable to that of NEWS.

conclusionsMachine learning-based risk scores outperformed a widely-used rule-based triage algorithm and human prioritization decisions in predicting hospital outcomes. Performance was robust in a prospectively gathered dataset, and scores demonstrated adequate calibration. Future research should explore the robustness of these methods when applied to other settings, establish appropriate outcome measures for use in determining the need for prehospital care, and investigate the clinical impact of interventions based on these methods.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAgedAmbulancesCritical CareEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeeds AssessmentProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentROC CurveSwedenTriage

Identifiers

PMID31834920
PMCPMC6910679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.