ArticleScientific reports2023
Improved patient mortality predictions in emergency departments with deep learning data-synthesis and ensemble models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of artificial intelligence predicting emergency department dispositions.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence-powered tiered early warning framework addressing high false alarm rates for in-hospital mortality prediction.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Admission Status, Intensive Care Requirements, and Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Review
- Machine learning-based mortality prediction models for emergency department patients: a comparative analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing the Impact of Waiting Time on Triage Color Code Assignment and One-Year Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Causal Mediation Analysis.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Transparent AI-driven personalized risk prediction system for acute kidney injury after total hip arthroplasty.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of a prognostic risk model for colorectal cancer based on microsatellite stability-associated genes.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Predicting Mortality in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated with Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Machine Learning Study Based on the MIMIC-IV Database.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Can supervised deep learning architecture outperform autoencoders in building propensity score models for matching?BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- A comparative study of explainable ensemble learning and logistic regression for predicting in-hospital mortality in the emergency department.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The triage process in emergency departments (EDs) relies on the subjective assessment of medical practitioners, making it unreliable in certain aspects. There is a need for a more accurate and objective algorithm to determine the urgency of patients. This paper explores the application of advanced data-synthesis algorithms, machine learning (ML) algorithms, and ensemble models to predict patient mortality. Patients predicted to be at risk of mortality are in a highly critical condition, signifying an urgent need for immediate medical intervention. This paper aims to determine the most effective method for predicting mortality by enhancing the F1 score while maintaining high area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) score. This study used a dataset of 7325 patients who visited the Yonsei Severance Hospital's ED, located in Seoul, South Korea. The patients were divided into two groups: patients who deceased in the ED and patients who didn't. Various data-synthesis techniques, such as SMOTE, ADASYN, CTGAN, TVAE, CopulaGAN, and Gaussian Copula, were deployed to generate synthetic patient data. Twenty two ML models were then utilized, including tree-based algorithms like Decision tree, AdaBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost, XGBoost, NGBoost, TabNet, which are deep neural network algorithms, and statistical algorithms such as Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, k-nearest neighbors, and Gaussian Naive Bayes, as well as Ensemble Models which use the results from the ML models. Based on 21 patient information features used in the pandemic influenza triage algorithm (PITA), the models explained previously were applied to aim for the prediction of patient mortality. In evaluating ML algorithms using an imbalanced medical dataset, conventional metrics like accuracy scores or AUC can be misleading. This paper emphasizes the importance of using the F1 score as the primary performance measure, focusing on recall and specificity in detecting patient mortality. The highest-ranked model for predicting mortality utilized the Gaussian Copula data-synthesis technique and the CatBoost classifier, achieving an AUC of 0.9731 and an F1 score of 0.7059. These findings highlight the effectiveness of machine learning algorithms and data-synthesis techniques in improving the prediction performance of mortality in EDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.