ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Performance comparison of artificial intelligence models in predicting 72-h emergency department unscheduled return visits.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Unscheduled return visits (URVs) to emergency departments (EDs) contribute significantly to healthcare burden through resource utilization and ED overcrowding. While artificial intelligence (AI) methodologies show potential in URV prediction, existing studies have employed limited algorithms with moderate performance, highlighting the need for comprehensive AI architecture comparison within unified cohorts. Objective: This study evaluated the predictive performance of multiple AI models for 72-h ED URVs, aiming to identify optimal risk stratification strategies for improved discharge planning and targeted interventions. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed adult internal medicine visits to the ED at a tertiary hospital. URVs were defined as ED revisits occurring within 72 h after initial ED discharge time. The dataset was partitioned into training (70%) and testing (30%) sets. Four traditional machine learning algorithms (logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting) and one deep learning architecture (TabNet) were developed with Bayesian optimization for hyperparameter tuning. Model performance was assessed through comprehensive metrics including discrimination, calibration, clinical utility, and confusion matrices. The optimal model underwent feature importance analysis, systematic ablation studies, sensitivity analyses, and subgroup fairness evaluation. Results: Of 143,192 analyzed visits, 24,117 (16.8%) were classified as URVs. Data were allocated into training ( Conclusion: TabNet outperformed traditional machine learning approaches in predicting 72-h ED URVs, offering potential for improved risk stratification in emergency care settings.
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.