Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34448870›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Development and Assessment of an Interpretable Machine Learning Triage Tool for Estimating Mortality After Emergency Admissions.

Feng Xie, Marcus Eng Hock Ong, Johannes Nathaniel Min Hui Liew, Kenneth Boon Kiat Tan, Andrew Fu Wah Ho, Gayathri Devi Nadarajan, Lian Leng Low, Yu Heng Kwan, Benjamin Alan Goldstein, David Bruce Matchar and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.2field-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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. A point-based cognitive impairment scoring system for southeast Asian adults.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Feng XieProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.
Marcus Eng Hock OngProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.
Johannes Nathaniel Min Hui LiewProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.
Kenneth Boon Kiat TanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Andrew Fu Wah HoProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.
Gayathri Devi NadarajanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Lian Leng LowProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.
Yu Heng KwanProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.
Benjamin Alan GoldsteinProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.
David Bruce MatcharProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.
Bibhas ChakrabortyProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.
Nan LiuProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.
National University of Singapore · SGSingapore General Hospital · SGSingHealth · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Triage in the emergency department (ED) is a complex clinical judgment based on the tacit understanding of the patient's likelihood of survival, availability of medical resources, and local practices. Although a scoring tool could be valuable in risk stratification, currently available scores have demonstrated limitations. Objectives: To develop an interpretable machine learning tool based on a parsimonious list of variables available at ED triage; provide a simple, early, and accurate estimate of patients' risk of death; and evaluate the tool's predictive accuracy compared with several established clinical scores. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-site, retrospective cohort study assessed all ED patients between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2016, who were subsequently admitted to a tertiary hospital in Singapore. The Score for Emergency Risk Prediction (SERP) tool was derived using a machine learning framework. To estimate mortality outcomes after emergency admissions, SERP was compared with several triage systems, including Patient Acuity Category Scale, Modified Early Warning Score, National Early Warning Score, Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage, Rapid Acute Physiology Score, and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score. The initial analyses were completed in October 2020, and additional analyses were conducted in May 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three SERP scores, namely SERP-2d, SERP-7d, and SERP-30d, were developed using the primary outcomes of interest of 2-, 7-, and 30-day mortality, respectively. Secondary outcomes included 3-day mortality and inpatient mortality. The SERP's predictive power was measured using the area under the curve in the receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 224 666 ED episodes in the model training cohort (mean [SD] patient age, 63.60 [16.90] years; 113 426 [50.5%] female), 56 167 episodes in the validation cohort (mean [SD] patient age, 63.58 [16.87] years; 28 427 [50.6%] female), and 42 676 episodes in the testing cohort (mean [SD] patient age, 64.85 [16.80] years; 21 556 [50.5%] female). The mortality rates in the training cohort were 0.8% at 2 days, 2.2% at 7 days, and 5.9% at 30 days. In the testing cohort, the areas under the curve of SERP-30d were 0.821 (95% CI, 0.796-0.847) for 2-day mortality, 0.826 (95% CI, 0.811-0.841) for 7-day mortality, and 0.823 (95% CI, 0.814-0.832) for 30-day mortality and outperformed several benchmark scores. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, SERP had better prediction performance than existing triage scores while maintaining easy implementation and ease of ascertainment in the ED. It has the potential to be widely applied and validated in different circumstances and health care settings.

Indexed as

Machine LearningPatient AcuityAgedBenchmarkingEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient AdmissionPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSingapore

Identifiers

PMID34448870
PMCPMC8397930
OpenAlexW3194068789

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.