ArticleHealth services research2024
Identifying low acuity Emergency Department visits with a machine learning approach: The low acuity visit algorithms (LAVA).
Article in Health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Groups May Have Underused The Emergency Department For Nonavoidable Visits, 2018-22.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2025Article
- Identifying low acuity Emergency Department visits with a machine learning approach: The low acuity visit algorithms (LAVA).Health services research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo improve the performance of International Classification of Disease (ICD) code rule-based algorithms for identifying low acuity Emergency Department (ED) visits by using machine learning methods and additional covariates. DATA SOURCES: We used secondary data on ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Survey (NHAMCS), from 2016 to 2020. STUDY
designWe established baseline performance metrics with seven published algorithms consisting of International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision codes used to identify low acuity ED visits. We then trained logistic regression, random forest, and gradient boosting (XGBoost) models to predict low acuity ED visits. Each model was trained on five different covariate sets of demographic and clinical data. Model performance was compared using a separate validation dataset. The primary performance metric was the probability that a visit identified by an algorithm as low acuity did not experience significant testing, treatment, or disposition (positive predictive value, PPV). Subgroup analyses assessed model performance across age, sex, and race/ethnicity. DATA COLLECTION: We used 2016-2019 NHAMCS data as the training set and 2020 NHAMCS data for validation. PRINCIPAL
findingsThe training and validation data consisted of 53,074 and 9542 observations, respectively. Among seven rule-based algorithms, the highest-performing had a PPV of 0.35 (95% CI [0.33, 0.36]). All model-based algorithms outperformed existing algorithms, with the least effective-random forest using only age and sex-improving PPV by 26% (up to 0.44; 95% CI [0.40, 0.48]). Logistic regression and XGBoost trained on all variables improved PPV by 83% (to 0.64; 95% CI [0.62, 0.66]). Multivariable models also demonstrated higher PPV across all three demographic subgroups.
conclusionsMachine learning models substantially outperform existing algorithms based on ICD codes in predicting low acuity ED visits. Variations in model performance across demographic groups highlight the need for further research to ensure their applicability and fairness across diverse populations.
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.