Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37872536›Full record

Trial reportBMC endocrine disorders2023

Using artificial intelligence to predict adverse outcomes in emergency department patients with hyperglycemic crises in real time.

Chin-Chuan Hsu, Yuan Kao, Chien-Chin Hsu, Chia-Jung Chen, Shu-Lien Hsu, Tzu-Lan Liu, Hung-Jung Lin, Jhi-Joung Wang, Chung-Feng Liu, Chien-Cheng Huang

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: A Specialty-Level Overview of Emerging AI Trends.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    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

10 authors.

Chin-Chuan Hsu *Department of Emergency Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, 901 Zhonghua Road, Yongkang District, Tainan City, 710, Taiwan.
Yuan Kao *Department of Emergency Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, 901 Zhonghua Road, Yongkang District, Tainan City, 710, Taiwan.
Chien-Chin HsuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, 901 Zhonghua Road, Yongkang District, Tainan City, 710, Taiwan.
Chia-Jung ChenInformation Systems, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
Shu-Lien HsuDepartment of Nursing, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
Tzu-Lan LiuInformation Systems, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
Hung-Jung LinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, 901 Zhonghua Road, Yongkang District, Tainan City, 710, Taiwan.
Jhi-Joung WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
Chung-Feng LiuDepartment of Medical Research, Chi Mei Medical Center, 901 Zhonghua Road, Yongkang District, Tainan City, 710, Taiwan. chungfengliu@gmail.com.
Chien-Cheng HuangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, 901 Zhonghua Road, Yongkang District, Tainan City, 710, Taiwan. chienchenghuang@yahoo.com.tw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3595-2952

Funding

Chi Mei Medical Center CMFHR108124
6 · The paper itself

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

SepsisShock, SepticArtificial IntelligenceEmergency Service, HospitalHumansNeural Networks, ComputerAdverse outcomeArtificial intelligenceEmergency departmentHyperglycemic crisesIntensive care unitMachine learningMortalityMultilayer perceptronSepsis

Identifiers

PMID37872536
PMCPMC10594858

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.