Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34593930›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Prediction of hospitalization using artificial intelligence for urgent patients in the emergency department.

Jung-Ting Lee, Chih-Chia Hsieh, Chih-Hao Lin, Yu-Jen Lin, Chung-Yao Kao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The effects of applying artificial intelligence to triage in the emergency department: A systematic review of prospective studies.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Jung-Ting LeeSi-Wan College, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chih-Chia HsiehDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, No.138, Shengli Rd., North District, Tainan, 70403, Taiwan.
Chih-Hao LinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, No.138, Shengli Rd., North District, Tainan, 70403, Taiwan. emergency.lin@gmail.com.
Yu-Jen LinDepartment of Electrical Engineering, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chung-Yao KaoDepartment of Electrical Engineering, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Timely assessment to accurately prioritize patients is crucial for emergency department (ED) management. Urgent (i.e., level-3, on a 5-level emergency severity index system) patients have become a challenge since under-triage and over-triage often occur. This study was aimed to develop a computational model by artificial intelligence (AI) methodologies to accurately predict urgent patient outcomes using data that are readily available in most ED triage systems. We retrospectively collected data from the ED of a tertiary teaching hospital between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019. Eleven variables were used for data analysis and prediction model building, including 1 response, 2 demographic, and 8 clinical variables. A model to predict hospital admission was developed using neural networks and machine learning methodologies. A total of 282,971 samples of urgent (level-3) visits were included in the analysis. Our model achieved a validation area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8004 (95% CI 0.7963-0.8045). The optimal cutoff value identified by Youden's index for determining hospital admission was 0.5517. Using this cutoff value, the sensitivity was 0.6721 (95% CI 0.6624-0.6818), and the specificity was 0.7814 (95% CI 0.7777-0.7851), with a positive predictive value of 0.3660 (95% CI 0.3586-0.3733) and a negative predictive value of 0.9270 (95% CI 0.9244-0.9295). Subgroup analysis revealed that this model performed better in the nontraumatic adult subgroup and achieved a validation AUC of 0.8166 (95% CI 0.8199-0.8212). Our AI model accurately assessed the need for hospitalization for urgent patients, which constituted nearly 70% of ED visits. This model demonstrates the potential for streamlining ED operations using a very limited number of variables that are readily available in most ED triage systems. Subgroup analysis is an important topic for future investigation.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveArtificial IntelligenceChildChild, PreschoolEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleForecastingHospitalizationHospitals, TeachingHumansInfantMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID34593930
PMCPMC8484275

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.