Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32126097›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Predicting Intensive Care Unit admission among patients presenting to the emergency department using machine learning and natural language processing.

Marta Fernandes, Rúben Mendes, Susana M Vieira, Francisca Leite, Carlos Palos, Alistair Johnson, Stan Finkelstein, Steven Horng, Leo Anthony Celi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

9 authors.

Marta FernandesIDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-7203-2832
Rúben MendesIDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Susana M VieiraIDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7961-1004
Francisca LeiteHospital da Luz Learning Health, Lisbon, Portugal.
Carlos PalosHospital Beatriz Ângelo, Luz Saúde, Lisbon, Portugal.
Alistair JohnsonMIT Critical Data, Laboratory for Computational Physiology, Harvard-MIT Health Sciences & Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Stan FinkelsteinInstitute for Data, Systems and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Steven HorngDepartment of Emergency Medicine / Division of Clinical Informatics / Center for Healthcare Delivery Science, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Leo Anthony CeliMIT Critical Data, Laboratory for Computational Physiology, Harvard-MIT Health Sciences & Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6712-6626

Funding

Critical Care Informatics: Ethical considerations around the use and sharing of health-related dataR01EB017205 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI CELI, LEO ANTHONY G, MARK, ROGER GREENWOOD · 2014 to 2021
$3.8M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017205
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The risk stratification of patients in the emergency department begins at triage. It is vital to stratify patients early based on their severity, since undertriage can lead to increased morbidity, mortality and costs. Our aim was to present a new approach to assist healthcare professionals at triage in the stratification of patients and in identifying those with higher risk of ICU admission. Adult patients assigned Manchester Triage System (MTS) or Emergency Severity Index (ESI) 1 to 3 from a Portuguese and a United States Emergency Departments were analyzed. Variables routinely collected at triage were used and natural language processing was applied to the patient chief complaint. Stratified random sampling was applied to split the data in train (70%) and test (30%) sets and 10-fold cross validation was performed for model training. Logistic regression, random forests, and a random undersampling boosting algorithm were used. We compared the performance obtained with the reference model-using only triage priorities-with the models using additional variables. For both hospitals, a logistic regression model achieved higher overall performance, yielding areas under the receiver operating characteristic and precision-recall curves of 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.92) and 0.30 (95% CI 0.27-0.33) for the United States hospital and of 0.85 (95% CI 0.83-0.86) and 0.06 (95% CI 0.05-0.07) for the Portuguese hospital. Heart rate, pulse oximetry, respiratory rate and systolic blood pressure were the most important predictors of ICU admission. Compared to the reference models, the models using clinical variables and the chief complaint presented higher recall for patients assigned MTS/ESI 3 and can identify patients assigned MTS/ESI 3 who are at risk for ICU admission.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsLogistic ModelsMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedNatural Language ProcessingPatient AdmissionPortugalRisk AssessmentTriage

Identifiers

PMID32126097
PMCPMC7053743

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.