Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35294539›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Assessment of Machine Learning-Based Medical Directives to Expedite Care in Pediatric Emergency Medicine.

Devin Singh, Sujay Nagaraj, Pouria Mashouri, Erik Drysdale, Jason Fischer, Anna Goldenberg, Michael Brudno

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Development and validation of a long-term survival prediction model for older adults with asthma.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Devin SinghDepartment of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sujay NagarajThe Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Pouria MashouriDATA Team, Techna Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Erik DrysdaleThe Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jason FischerThe Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Anna GoldenbergDepartment of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael BrudnoDepartment of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research · CAHospital for Sick Children · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Increased wait times and long lengths of stay in emergency departments (EDs) are associated with poor patient outcomes. Systems to improve ED efficiency would be useful. Specifically, minimizing the time to diagnosis by developing novel workflows that expedite test ordering can help accelerate clinical decision-making. Objective: To explore the use of machine learning-based medical directives (MLMDs) to automate diagnostic testing at triage for patients with common pediatric ED diagnoses. Design, Setting, and Participants: Machine learning models trained on retrospective electronic health record data were evaluated in a decision analytical model study conducted at the ED of the Hospital for Sick Children Toronto, Canada. Data were collected on all patients aged 0 to 18 years presenting to the ED from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019 (77 219 total patient visits). Exposure: Machine learning models were trained to predict the need for urinary dipstick testing, electrocardiogram, abdominal ultrasonography, testicular ultrasonography, bilirubin level testing, and forearm radiographs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Models were evaluated using area under the receiver operator curve, true-positive rate, false-positive rate, and positive predictive values. Model decision thresholds were determined to limit the total number of false-positive results and achieve high positive predictive values. The time difference between patient triage completion and test ordering was assessed for each use of MLMD. Error rates were analyzed to assess model bias. In addition, model explainability was determined using Shapley Additive Explanations values. Results: There was a total of 42 238 boys (54.7%) included in model development; mean (SD) age of the children was 5.4 (4.8) years. Models obtained high area under the receiver operator curve (0.89-0.99) and positive predictive values (0.77-0.94) across each of the use cases. The proposed implementation of MLMDs would streamline care for 22.3% of all patient visits and make test results available earlier by 165 minutes (weighted mean) per affected patient. Model explainability for each MLMD demonstrated clinically relevant features having the most influence on model predictions. Models also performed with minimal to no sex bias. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest the potential for clinical automation using MLMDs. When integrated into clinical workflows, MLMDs may have the potential to autonomously order common ED tests early in a patient's visit with explainability provided to patients and clinicians.

Indexed as

Pediatric Emergency MedicineAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolEmergency Service, HospitalHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMachine LearningMaleRetrospective StudiesTriage

Identifiers

PMID35294539
PMCPMC8928004
OpenAlexW4220918265

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.