ArticleJAMA network open2025
Predicting Agitation Events in the Emergency Department Through Artificial Intelligence.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Technological Integration in Aesthetic Practice: A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality and Robotics in Cosmetic Procedures.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Dynamic, quantitative ESAT6-CFP10 skin test for tuberculosis risk prediction: a large-scale, multi-center, prospective cohort study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
- Workplace violence in trauma centers is a serious problem: an AAST Disaster Committee survey on assaults on trauma teams.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
- Agitation, Alzheimer's disease, and autophagy: mechanistic insights into aging pathways, gut microbiome, and artificial intelligence.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a prediction model for infection in chronic nonhealing wounds: a two-center retrospective study with external validation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Clinical predictors of repeat intramuscular medication administration for acute agitation: A retrospective cohort study.General hospital psychiatryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
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
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.