ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Evaluating fairness of machine learning prediction of prolonged wait times in Emergency Department with Interpretable eXtreme gradient boosting.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. 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.
- Forecast-Driven Dynamic Physician Staffing in a Pediatric Emergency Department: A Prospective Quasi-Experimental Pilot Study.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Impact of a high-profile sudden cardiac death on emergency department utilization: a multi-campus interrupted time series and exploratory phenotyping study.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Ethical considerations of artificial intelligence in emergency medicine for triage and resource allocation: a scoping review.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2025Article
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
Abstract
It is essential to evaluate performance and assess quality before applying artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models to clinical practice. This study utilized ML to predict patient wait times in the Emergency Department (ED), determine model performance accuracies, and conduct fairness evaluations to further assess ethnic disparities in using ML for wait time prediction among different patient populations in the ED. This retrospective observational study included adult patients (age ≥18 years) in the ED (n=173,856 visits) who were assigned an Emergency Severity Index (ESI) level of 3 at triage. Prolonged wait time was defined as waiting time ≥30 minutes. We employed extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) for predicting prolonged wait times. Model performance was assessed with accuracy, recall, precision, F1 score, and false negative rate (FNR). To perform the global and local interpretation of feature importance, we utilized Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) to interpret the output from the XGBoost model. Fairness in ML models were evaluated across sensitive attributes (sex, race and ethnicity, and insurance status) at both subgroup and individual levels. We found that nearly half (48.43%, 84,195) of ED patient visits demonstrated prolonged ED wait times. XGBoost model exhibited moderate accuracy performance (AUROC=0.81). When fairness was evaluated with FNRs, unfairness existed across different sensitive attributes (male vs. female, Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic White, and patients with insurances vs. without insurance). The predicted FNRs were lower among females, Hispanics, and patients without insurance compared to their counterparts. Therefore, XGBoost model demonstrated acceptable performance in predicting prolonged wait times in ED visits. However, disparities arise in predicting patients with different sex, race and ethnicity, and insurance status. To enhance the utility of ML model predictions in clinical practice, conducting performance assessments and fairness evaluations are crucial.
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.