ReviewDigital health
Implementation of machine learning in emergency departments: A systematic review.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in acute and critical care: current challenges and strategic solutions.Frontiers in public health · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review aims to evaluate studies that implemented and evaluated machine learning models in emergency department settings, focusing on their clinical and operational impact. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases from inception to January 2024. Studies were eligible if they assessed the implementation of machine learning models in emergency departments, with a particular focus on clinical and operational impact. Results: A total of 84 studies met the inclusion criteria. Gradient boosting and neural networks were the most frequently used models. Mortality prediction models achieved AUC values ranging from 0.618 to 0.978, with key predictors including age, sex, race, vital signs, and comorbidities. Disposition prediction models showed AUC values of 0.675-0.96, often incorporating age, sex, vital signs, triage data, and past medical history. Length of stay prediction studies identified demographic data, triage level, chief complaints, and comorbidities as significant predictors, with gradient boosting models yielding the highest predictive accuracy. Machine learning-based treatment decision models showed promise in sepsis detection and cardiovascular triage. Wait time prediction models using gradient boosting decreased patient wait times by 18%-26%. Emergency department cost prediction studies were limited, with logistic regression models achieving AUCs of 0.71-0.76 for identifying high-cost patients. Conclusion: Machine learning is widely used in emergency department research, but issues with generalizability and workflow integration limit its clinical use. Future work should improve data quality, representation, and ongoing model validation to enhance real-world utility.
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.