ArticleScientific reports2025
An intelligent community-based system for healthcare prioritisation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare rationing is unavoidable in systems constrained by limited resources. While decisions about who should be treated are ethically complex, they must reflect not only efficiency concerns but also socially accepted values. This study aims to develop a multi-criteria decision-support system - Vital Priority System, that prioritise patients using a Random Forest algorithm trained on multiple rationing criteria endorsed by Portuguese civil society. Based on a Portuguese online survey data, the model incorporates nine dimensions: clinical need, life expectancy gain, quality of life improvement, age, waiting time, parental status, lifestyle responsibility, and social role. Our results show that clinical need, expected treatment effectiveness, waiting time and age were the most influential, followed by parental status. Lifestyle and social role factors were least weighted. The proposed system enables the classification of patients as 'priority' or 'non-priority', providing healthcare professionals with a transparent, consistent, and ethically grounded tool to support decision-making. This study advances the literature by operationalising, for the first time in the Portuguese context, public preferences in a replicable AI-based framework for fairer patient prioritisation.
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.