ArticleBMC emergency medicine2024
Identification of avoidable patients at triage in a Paediatric Emergency Department: a decision support system using predictive analytics.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 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.
- Should we leave paediatric emergency triage to artificial intelligence? A comparison of ChatGPT 4o and Grok 3.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCrowding has been a longstanding issue in emergency departments. To address this, a fast-track system for avoidable patients is being implemented in the Paediatric Emergency Department where our study is conducted. Our goal is to develop an optimized Decision Support System that helps in directing patients to this fast track. We evaluated various Machine Learning models, focusing on a balance between complexity, predictive performance, and interpretability.
methodsThis is a retrospective study considering all visits to a university-affiliated metropolitan hospital's PED between 2014 and 2019. Using information available at the time of triage, we trained several models to predict whether a visit is avoidable and should be directed to a fast-track area.
resultsA total of 507,708 visits to the PED were used in the training and testing of the models. Regarding the outcome, 41.6% of the visits were considered avoidable. Except for the classification made by triage rules, i.e. considering levels 1,2, and 3 as non-avoidable and 4 and 5 as avoidable, all models had similar results in model's evaluation metrics, e.g. Area Under the Curve ranging from 74% to 80%.
conclusionsRegarding predictive performance, the pruned decision tree had evaluation metrics results that were comparable to the other ML models. Furthermore, it offers a low complexity and easy to implement solution. When considering interpretability, a paramount requisite in healthcare since it relates to the trustworthiness and transparency of the system, the pruned decision tree excels. Overall, this paper contributes to the growing body of research on the use of machine learning in healthcare. It highlights practical benefits for patients and healthcare systems of the use ML-based DSS in emergency medicine. Moreover, the obtained results can potentially help to design patients' flow management strategies in PED settings, which has been sought as a solution for addressing the long-standing problem of overcrowding.
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.