Trial reportBMC endocrine disorders2023
Using artificial intelligence to predict adverse outcomes in emergency department patients with hyperglycemic crises in real time.
Trial report in BMC endocrine disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 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
- Real-time dynamic prediction of in-hospital mortality in hyperglycemic crisis patients using temporal deep learning.World journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-powered tiered early warning framework addressing high false alarm rates for in-hospital mortality prediction.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Revolutionizing non-traumatic acute care: a review of the role of artificial intelligence and machine learning in triaging and diagnosis.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Advancing precision triage in strangulated small bowel obstruction: from static scores to dynamic multiparametric models.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Implementation and Updating of Clinical Prediction Models: A Systematic Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence as a Tool for Self-Care in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes-An Integrative Literature Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: A Specialty-Level Overview of Emerging AI Trends.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHyperglycemic crises are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Previous studies have proposed methods to predict adverse outcomes of patients in hyperglycemic crises; however, artificial intelligence (AI) has never been used to predict adverse outcomes. We implemented an AI model integrated with the hospital information system (HIS) to clarify whether AI could predict adverse outcomes.
methodsWe included 2,666 patients with hyperglycemic crises from emergency departments (ED) between 2009 and 2018. The patients were randomized into a 70%/30% split for AI model training and testing. Twenty-two feature variables from the electronic medical records were collected. The performance of the multilayer perceptron (MLP), logistic regression, random forest, Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), support vector machine (SVM), and K-nearest neighbor (KNN) algorithms was compared. We selected the best algorithm to construct an AI model to predict sepsis or septic shock, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and all-cause mortality within 1 month. The outcomes between the non-AI and AI groups were compared after implementing the HIS and predicting the hyperglycemic crisis death (PHD) score.
resultsThe MLP had the best performance in predicting the three adverse outcomes, compared with the random forest, logistic regression, SVM, KNN, and LightGBM models. The areas under the curves (AUCs) using the MLP model were 0.852 for sepsis or septic shock, 0.743 for ICU admission, and 0.796 for all-cause mortality. Furthermore, we integrated the AI predictive model with the HIS to assist decision making in real time. No significant differences in ICU admission or all-cause mortality were detected between the non-AI and AI groups. The AI model performed better than the PHD score for predicting all-cause mortality (AUC 0.796 vs. 0.693).
conclusionsA real-time AI predictive model is a promising method for predicting adverse outcomes in ED patients with hyperglycemic crises. Further studies recruiting more patients are warranted.
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.