Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40332935›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Predicting Agitation Events in the Emergency Department Through Artificial Intelligence.

Ambrose H Wong, Atharva V Sapre, Kaicheng Wang, Bidisha Nath, Dhruvil Shah, Anusha Kumar, Isaac V Faustino, Riddhi Desai, Yue Hu, Leah Robinson and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

17 authors.

Ambrose H WongDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Atharva V SapreDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Kaicheng WangDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
Bidisha NathDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Dhruvil ShahDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Anusha KumarDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Isaac V FaustinoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Riddhi DesaiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Yue HuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Leah RobinsonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Can MengDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
Guangyu TongDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
Steven L BernsteinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Kimberly A YonkersDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worchester.
Edward R MelnickDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
James D DziuraDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
R Andrew TaylorDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

Examining Non-Congregate Shelter Effects on Mental Health Crises through Community Health Partnerships in ConnecticutR01NR021461 · NINR · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI HARPER, ANNIE, WONG, AMBROSE H · 2024 to 2024
$2.4M
System Dynamics Modeling to Promote Health in Management of AgitationR01MH132605 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Rebekah Heckmann, Ambrose H Wong · 2024 to 2026
$2.2M
Clinical Decision Support Tool to Assess Risk and Prevent Agitation EventsK23MH126366 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI WONG, AMBROSE H · 2021 to 2024
$883k
Characterizing Bias and Care Disparities with Physical Restraint Use in the Emergency Setting Using Natural Language and Cognitive DataR21MD017327 · NIMHD · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI WONG, AMBROSE H · 2022 to 2023
$461k
NIMHD NIH HHS R21 MD017327NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH126366NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH132605NINR NIH HHS R01 NR021461
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Agitation events are increasing in emergency departments (EDs), exacerbating safety risks for patients and clinicians. A wide range of clinical etiologies and behavioral patterns in the emergency setting make agitation prediction difficult in this setting. Objective: To develop, train, and validate an agitation-specific prediction model based on a large, diverse set of past ED visit data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included electronic health record data collected from 9 ED sites within a large, urban health system in the Northeast US. All ED visits featuring patients aged 18 years or older from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2022, were included in the analysis and modeling. Data analysis occurred between May 2023 and September 2024. Exposures: Variables that served as potential exposures of interest, encompassing demographic information, patient history, initial vital signs, visit information, mode of arrival, and health services utilization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of agitation was defined as the presence of an intramuscular chemical sedation and/or violent physical restraint order during an ED visit. A clinical model was developed to identify risk factors that predict agitation development during an ED visit prior to symptom onset. Model performance was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision recall curve (PR-AUC). Results: The final cohort comprised 3 048 780 visits. The cohort had a mean (SD) age of 50.2 (20.4) years, with 54.7% visits among female patients. The final artificial intelligence model used 50 predictors for the primary outcome of predicting agitation events. The model achieved an AUROC of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.94) and a PR-AUC of 0.41 (95% CI, 0.40-0.42) in cross-validation, indicating good discriminative ability. Calibration of the model was evaluated and demonstrated robustness across the range of predicted probabilities. The top predictors in the final model included factors such as number of past ED visits, initial vital signs, medical history, chief concern, and number of previous sedation and restraint events. Conclusions and Relevance: Using a cross-sectional cohort of ED visits across 9 hospitals, the prediction model included factors for detecting risk of agitation that demonstrated high accuracy and applicability across diverse patient populations. These results suggest that clinical application of the model may enhance patient-centered care through preemptive deescalation and prevention of agitation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEmergency Service, HospitalPsychomotor AgitationAdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID40332935
PMCPMC12059975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.