ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2024
Prediction of high-risk emergency department revisits from a machine-learning algorithm: a proof-of-concept study.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Characteristics and clinical outcomes of cancer patients presenting to the emergency department in Korea: a retrospective descriptive study].Journal of Korean biological nursing science · 2026Article
- Deep learning to predict emergency department revisit using static and dynamic features (Deep Revisit): development and validation study.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Predicting child and adolescent mental health emergency department revisits: a machine-learning approach compared to a clinician-derived baseline.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Smart emergency care: a narrative review of predictive machine learning models.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Machine learning in diagnostic support in medical emergency departments.Scientific reports · 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
- Missed specialty consultation and hospital admission in 72-hour emergency department return visits.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-risk emergency department (ED) revisit is considered an important quality indicator that may reflect an increase in complications and medical burden. However, because of its multidimensional and highly complex nature, this factor has not been comprehensively investigated. This study aimed to predict high-risk ED revisit with a machine-learning (ML) approach.
methodsThis 3-year retrospective cohort study assessed adult patients between January 2019 and December 2021 from National Taiwan University Hospital Hsin-Chu Branch with high-risk ED revisit, defined as hospital or intensive care unit admission after ED return within 72 hours. A total of 150 features were preliminarily screened, and 79 were used in the prediction model. Deep learning, random forest, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and stacked ensemble algorithm were used. The stacked ensemble model combined multiple ML models and performed model stacking as a meta-level algorithm. Confusion matrix, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were used to evaluate performance.
resultsAnalysis was performed for 6282 eligible adult patients: 5025 (80.0%) in the training set and 1257 (20.0%) in the testing set. High-risk ED revisit occurred for 971 (19.3%) of training set patients vs 252 (20.1%) in the testing set. Leading predictors of high-risk ED revisit were age, systolic blood pressure and heart rate. The stacked ensemble model showed more favourable prediction performance (AUROC 0.82) than the other models: deep learning (0.69), random forest (0.78) and XGBoost (0.79). Also, the stacked ensemble model achieved favourable accuracy and specificity.
conclusionThe stacked ensemble algorithm exhibited better prediction performance in which the predictions were generated from different ML algorithms to optimally maximise the final set of results. Patients with older age and abnormal systolic blood pressure and heart rate at the index ED visit were vulnerable to high-risk ED revisit. Further studies should be conducted to externally validate the model.
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.