Observational studyBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Uncovering nonlinear patterns in time-sensitive prehospital breathing emergencies: an exploratory machine learning study.
Observational study in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Can machine learning predict non-suicidal self-injury? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Institutional Delivery Dropout (IDD) Among Nigerian Women: An Exploratory Study Using SHAP Interpretability.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2026Article
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
backgroundTimely prehospital care is crucial for patients presenting with high-risk time-sensitive (HRTS) conditions. However, the interplay between response time and demographic factors in patients with breathing problems remains insufficiently understood. In this exploratory study, we applied machine learning (ML) to examine how emergency medical response time, age, and sex jointly influence the probability of encountering HRTS conditions.
methodsA retrospective observational analysis was conducted on 132,395 prehospital missions in Stockholm (2017-2022). Multiple ML models, random forest, gradient boosting, neural networks, and logistic regression were trained to probe potential nonlinear patterns and interactions, not with the primary goal of predictive accuracy. Model performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) measures. However, partial dependence (PD) and individual conditional expectation (ICE) plots were the principal tools illustrating how response time, age, and sex shape HRTS likelihood.
resultsPD and ICE plots revealed that older age (> 60 years) was consistently associated with a higher probability of HRTS. Moreover, patients over 60 years displayed a complex, rising risk at prolonged response times exceeding two hours. Gradient boosting offered the best (though modest) classification metrics, with an AUC of 0.66 and an F1-score of 0.55. We emphasize that these metrics, while necessary for completeness, were secondary to our aim of characterizing nonlinear relationships.
conclusionsOur findings underscore the exploratory value of ML in identifying subtle relationships and interactions among response time, age, and sex for time-sensitive breathing emergencies. These results highlight opportunities to refine dispatch protocols, develop age- and sex-focused screening questions, and revisit lower-priority calls after extended wait times. Future work should incorporate richer data and refine these insights for potential predictive use. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.