Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35054249›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

A Machine Learning Model for Predicting Unscheduled 72 h Return Visits to the Emergency Department by Patients with Abdominal Pain.

Chun-Chuan Hsu, Cheng-C J Chu, Ching-Heng Lin, Chien-Hsiung Huang, Chip-Jin Ng, Guan-Yu Lin, Meng-Jiun Chiou, Hsiang-Yun Lo, Shou-Yen Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors.

Chun-Chuan HsuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University, Linkou, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan.
Cheng-C J ChuCenter for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan.
Ching-Heng LinCenter for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-8042-5484
Chien-Hsiung HuangNew Taipei City Hospital, New Taipei City Government, New Taipei City 241, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-8207-3582
Chip-Jin NgDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University, Linkou, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-0363-2938
Guan-Yu LinCenter for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan.
Meng-Jiun ChiouCenter for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan.
Hsiang-Yun LoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University, Linkou, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan.
Shou-Yen ChenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University, Linkou, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-3039-9644

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Seventy-two-hour unscheduled return visits (URVs) by emergency department patients are a key clinical index for evaluating the quality of care in emergency departments (EDs). This study aimed to develop a machine learning model to predict 72 h URVs for ED patients with abdominal pain. Electronic health records data were collected from the Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) for 25,151 ED visits by patients with abdominal pain and a total of 617 features were used for analysis. We used supervised machine learning models, namely logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), and voting classifier (VC), to predict URVs. The VC model achieved more favorable overall performance than other models (AUROC: 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-0.76; sensitivity, 0.39; specificity, 0.89; F1 score, 0.25). The reduced VC model achieved comparable performance (AUROC: 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.74) to the full models using all clinical features. The VC model exhibited the most favorable performance in predicting 72 h URVs for patients with abdominal pain, both for all-features and reduced-features models. Application of the VC model in the clinical setting after validation may help physicians to make accurate decisions and decrease URVs.

Indexed as

72 habdominal painemergency departmentunscheduled return visit

Identifiers

PMID35054249
PMCPMC8775134

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.