Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39558255›Full record

SynthesisBMC emergency medicine2024

Improving triage performance in emergency departments using machine learning and natural language processing: a systematic review.

Bruno Matos Porto

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 49 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. AI applications in disaster governance with health approach: A scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Bias in Burn Care: A Literature Review of Ethical Challenges.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026
    Review
  9. Subgroup Differences in Agreement Between an Algorithm Guided Large Language Model and Routine Emergency Department Triage.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

1 author.

Bruno Matos PortoIndustrial Engineering Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha 55, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. bmatosporto@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Emergency Departments (EDs), triage is crucial for determining patient severity and prioritizing care, typically using the Manchester Triage Scale (MTS). Traditional triage systems, reliant on human judgment, are prone to under-triage and over-triage, resulting in variability, bias, and incorrect patient classification. Studies suggest that Machine Learning (ML) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) could enhance triage accuracy and consistency. This review analyzes studies on ML and/or NLP algorithms for ED patient triage.

methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a systematic review across five databases: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library, from their inception of each database to October 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Only articles employing at least one ML and/or NLP method for patient triage classification were included.

resultsSixty studies covering 57 ML algorithms were included. Logistic Regression (LR) was the most used model, while eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), decision tree-based algorithms with Gradient Boosting (GB), and Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) showed superior performance. Frequent predictive variables included demographics and vital signs, with oxygen saturation, chief complaints, systolic blood pressure, age, and mode of arrival being the most retained. The ML algorithms showed significant bias risk due to critical bias assessment in classification models.

conclusionNLP methods improved ML algorithms' classification capability using triage nursing and medical notes and structured clinical data compared to algorithms using only structured data. Feature engineering (FE) and class imbalance correction methods enhanced ML workflows' performance, but FE and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) were underexplored in this field. Registration and funding. This systematic review has been registered (registration number: CRD42024604529) in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and can be accessed online at the following URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=604529 . Funding for this work was provided by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalMachine LearningNatural Language ProcessingTriageHumansArtificial intelligenceFeature engineeringTriage of patientsTriage systems

Identifiers

PMID39558255
PMCPMC11575054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.