ReviewCureus2025
Artificial Intelligence in Prehospital Emergency Care: Advancing Triage and Destination Decisions for Time-Critical Conditions.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Human-artificial intelligence collaboration in emergency medical services: from diagnostic algorithms to shared decision support.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in prehospital assessment of acute coronary syndrome: a scoping review.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing Diagnostic and Triage Accuracy in Hospital Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prehospital triage is critical for time-sensitive emergencies such as trauma, stroke, and acute coronary syndrome. Undertriage delays definitive care, while overtriage strains higher-level facilities. Existing triage tools based on vital signs and scoring systems have limited accuracy, but artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and neural networks (NN) offer the potential to improve decision-making by integrating multiple data sources. This narrative review of studies indexed in PubMed and PubMed Central through August 2025 evaluated AI, ML, and NN models designed for prehospital triage or transport destination decisions across trauma, critical illness, stroke, dyspnea, cardiac emergencies, sepsis, and in-hospital studies preventing possible readmission. Across the conditions examined, ML models consistently outperformed traditional early warning scores and guideline-based tools. Trauma models achieved area under the curve (AUC) values between 0.75 and 0.93 and reduced undertriage to less than 10%. ML models predicted the need for critical care with an AUC of 0.908, and prehospital stroke algorithms reached AUCs above 0.98. NN, deep forest, and random forest models demonstrated an AUC of 0.88 in prehospital acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) prediction. Additional studies demonstrated improved recognition of dyspnea-related serious events and acute coronary syndrome, while no validated models currently exist for prehospital sepsis. Despite promising results, most studies were retrospective, with limited prospective validation, generalizability, or evaluation of workflow integration. Future research should focus on prospective studies, diverse patient cohorts, integration into emergency medical service (EMS) workflows, model explainability, and rigorous comparisons with standard practice.
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.