ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2024
Multisite development and validation of machine learning models to predict severe outcomes and guide decision-making for emergency department patients with influenza.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multisite development and validation of machine learning models to predict severe outcomes and guide decision-making for emergency department patients with influenza.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024Article
- Mapping artificial intelligence models in emergency medicine: A scoping review on artificial intelligence performance in emergency care and education.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Millions of Americans are infected by influenza annually. A minority seek care in the emergency department (ED) and, of those, only a limited number experience severe disease or death. ED clinicians must distinguish those at risk for deterioration from those who can be safely discharged. Methods: We developed random forest machine learning (ML) models to estimate needs for critical care within 24 h and inpatient care within 72 h in ED patients with influenza. Predictor data were limited to those recorded prior to ED disposition decision: demographics, ED complaint, medical problems, vital signs, supplemental oxygen use, and laboratory results. Our study population was comprised of adults diagnosed with influenza at one of five EDs in our university health system between January 1, 2017 and May 18, 2022; visits were divided into two cohorts to facilitate model development and validation. Prediction performance was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the Brier score. Results: Among 8032 patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza, incidence of critical care needs was 6.3% and incidence of inpatient care needs was 19.6%. The most common reasons for ED visit were symptoms of respiratory tract infection, fever, and shortness of breath. Model AUCs were 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.93) for prediction of critical care and 0.90 (95% CI 0.88-0.93) for inpatient care needs; Brier scores were 0.026 and 0.042, respectively. Importantpredictors included shortness of breath, increasing respiratory rate, and a high number of comorbid diseases. Conclusions: ML methods can be used to accurately predict clinical deterioration in ED patients with influenza and have potential to support ED disposition decision-making.
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.