Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35950158›Full record

ArticleJournal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures)2022

Using Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Hospital Admission at the Emergency Department.

Georgios Feretzakis, George Karlis, Evangelos Loupelis, Dimitris Kalles, Rea Chatzikyriakou, Nikolaos Trakas, Eugenia Karakou, Aikaterini Sakagianni, Lazaros Tzelves, Stavroula Petropoulou and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Artificial Intelligence: The Next Blockbuster Drug in Critical Care?Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2023
    Article
  18. 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

13 authors.

Georgios FeretzakisSismanogleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
George KarlisSotiria General Hospital of Chest Diseases of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Evangelos LoupelisSismanogleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Dimitris KallesHellenic Open University, Patras, Greece.
Rea ChatzikyriakouSismanogleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Nikolaos TrakasSismanogleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Eugenia KarakouSismanogleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Aikaterini SakagianniSismanogleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Lazaros TzelvesSismanogleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Stavroula PetropoulouSismanogleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Aikaterini TikaSismanogleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Ilias DalainasSismanogleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Vasileios KaldisSismanogleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: One of the most important tasks in the Emergency Department (ED) is to promptly identify the patients who will benefit from hospital admission. Machine Learning (ML) techniques show promise as diagnostic aids in healthcare. Aim of the study: Our objective was to find an algorithm using ML techniques to assist clinical decision-making in the emergency setting. Material and methods: We assessed the following features seeking to investigate their performance in predicting hospital admission: serum levels of Urea, Creatinine, Lactate Dehydrogenase, Creatine Kinase, C-Reactive Protein, Complete Blood Count with differential, Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time, DDi-mer, International Normalized Ratio, age, gender, triage disposition to ED unit and ambulance utilization. A total of 3,204 ED visits were analyzed. Results: The proposed algorithms generated models which demonstrated acceptable performance in predicting hospital admission of ED patients. The range of F-measure and ROC Area values of all eight evaluated algorithms were [0.679-0.708] and [0.734-0.774], respectively. The main advantages of this tool include easy access, availability, yes/no result, and low cost. The clinical implications of our approach might facilitate a shift from traditional clinical decision-making to a more sophisticated model. Conclusions: Developing robust prognostic models with the utilization of common biomarkers is a project that might shape the future of emergency medicine. Our findings warrant confirmation with implementation in pragmatic ED trials.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebiomarkersemergency departmentemergency medicinemachine learning techniques

Identifiers

PMID35950158
PMCPMC9097643

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.