Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32082696›Full record

ArticleHealthcare informatics research2020

Machine Learning and Initial Nursing Assessment-Based Triage System for Emergency Department.

Jae Yong Yu, Gab Yong Jeong, Ok Soon Jeong, Dong Kyung Chang, Won Chul Cha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare informatics research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

5 authors.

Jae Yong YuDepartment of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology (SAIHST), Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6922-8538
Gab Yong JeongDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0998-6828
Ok Soon JeongDepartment of IT Planning, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6172-6329
Dong Kyung ChangDepartment of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology (SAIHST), Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8925-4629
Won Chul ChaDepartment of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology (SAIHST), Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2778-2992

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to develop machine learning (ML) and initial nursing assessment (INA)-based emergency department (ED) triage to predict adverse clinical outcome.

methodsThe retrospective study included ED visits between January 2016 and December 2017 that resulted in either intensive care unit admission or emergency room death. We trained four classifiers using logistic regression and a deep learning model on INA and low dimensional (LD) INA, logistic regression on the Korea Triage and acuity scale (KTAS) and Sequential Related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA). We varied the outcome ratio for external validation. Finally, variables of importance were identified using the random forest model's information gain. The four most influential variables were used for LD modeling for efficiency.

resultsA total of 86,304 patient visits were included, with an overall outcome rate of 3.5%. The area under the curve (AUC) values for the KTAS model were 76.8 (74.9-78.6) with logistic regression and 74.0 (72.1-75.9) for the SOFA model, while the AUC values of the INA model were 87.2 (85.9-88.6) and 87.6 (86.3-88.9) with logistic regression and deep learning, suggesting that the ML and INA-based triage system result more accurately predicted the outcomes. The AUC values for the LD model were 81.2 (79.4-82.9) and 80.7 (78.9-82.5) for logistic regression and deep learning, respectively.

conclusionsWe developed an ML and INA-based triage system for EDs. The novel system was able to predict clinical outcomes more accurately than existing triage systems, KTAS and SOFA.

Indexed as

Deep LearningEfficiencyHospital Emergency ServiceMachine LearningTriage

Identifiers

PMID32082696
PMCPMC7010940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.