ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Predicting Emergency Severity Index (ESI) level, hospital admission, and admitting ward in an emergency department using data-driven machine learning.
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEmergency departments (EDs) are critical for ensuring timely patient care, especially in triage, where accurate prioritisation is essential for patient safety and resource utilisation. Building on previous research, this study leverages a comprehensive dataset of 653,546 ED visits spanning six years from Mater Dei Hospital, Malta. This dataset enables detailed trend analysis, demographic variation exploration, and predictive modelling of patient prioritisation, admission likelihood, and admitting ward.
methodsTwo predictive models (Stage 1 and Stage 2) were developed using the Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm. In Stage 1, predictions were made at the triage level using basic demographic and presenting symptom data. Stage 2 incorporated critical blood test results (e.g., Haemoglobin, C-Reactive Protein, Troponin T, and White Blood Cell Count) alongside the demographic and symptom data from Stage 1 to refine and enhance predictions. Key steps in data preprocessing, such as handling missing values, balancing class distributions with SMOTE, and feature encoding, are discussed. Model evaluation employed comprehensive metrics, including AUC-ROC and calibration curves, to assess both performance and reliability. This enhanced description provides a clear roadmap of the model development process, reinforcing the study's rigor and contribution to advancing machine learning applications in emergency care.
resultsThe models demonstrated significant predictive capabilities. Key metrics showed improvement between Stage 1 and Stage 2. For example, patient prioritisation accuracy improved from 0.75 to 0.76, admission prediction accuracy rose from 0.80 to 0.82, and admitting ward prediction accuracy increased from 0.80 to 0.86. These enhancements underscore the value of incorporating clinical data to optimise predictions. DISCUSSION: The integration of early predictions into ED workflows has the potential to improve patient flow, reduce wait times, and enhance resource allocation. By leveraging XGBoost's capabilities and integrating both demographic and clinical data, this study provides a robust framework for advancing decision-making processes in triage environments.
conclusionsThis research demonstrates the efficacy of machine learning models in predicting key ED outcomes, highlighting their potential to transform emergency care through data-driven insights.
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.