Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35882903›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2022

Machine learning for real-time aggregated prediction of hospital admission for emergency patients.

Zella King, Joseph Farrington, Martin Utley, Enoch Kung, Samer Elkhodair, Steve Harris, Richard Sekula, Jonathan Gillham, Kezhi Li, Sonya Crowe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

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

10 authors.

Zella KingClinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, 4 Taviton Street, London, WC1H 0BT, UK. zella.king@ucl.ac.uk.
Joseph FarringtonInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4156-3419
Martin UtleyClinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, 4 Taviton Street, London, WC1H 0BT, UK.
Enoch KungClinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, 4 Taviton Street, London, WC1H 0BT, UK.
Samer ElkhodairUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2PG, UK.
Steve HarrisUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2PG, UK.
Richard SekulaUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2PG, UK.
Jonathan GillhamUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2PG, UK.
Kezhi LiInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3073-3128
Sonya CroweClinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, 4 Taviton Street, London, WC1H 0BT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1882-5476

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust (Wellcome) 204841/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning for hospital operations is under-studied. We present a prediction pipeline that uses live electronic health-records for patients in a UK teaching hospital's emergency department (ED) to generate short-term, probabilistic forecasts of emergency admissions. A set of XGBoost classifiers applied to 109,465 ED visits yielded AUROCs from 0.82 to 0.90 depending on elapsed visit-time at the point of prediction. Patient-level probabilities of admission were aggregated to forecast the number of admissions among current ED patients and, incorporating patients yet to arrive, total emergency admissions within specified time-windows. The pipeline gave a mean absolute error (MAE) of 4.0 admissions (mean percentage error of 17%) versus 6.5 (32%) for a benchmark metric. Models developed with 104,504 later visits during the Covid-19 pandemic gave AUROCs of 0.68-0.90 and MAE of 4.2 (30%) versus a 4.9 (33%) benchmark. We discuss how we surmounted challenges of designing and implementing models for real-time use, including temporal framing, data preparation, and changing operational conditions.

Identifiers

PMID35882903
PMCPMC9321296

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.