SynthesisEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Machine learning to predict hospital admission at triage in paediatric emergency care: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) models have shown promise improving outcome prediction and early risk stratification in paediatric emergency department (ED) triage. This review aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ML in predicting hospital admissions from the data collected at triage in paediatric emergency departments (EDs). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science. Two reviewers screened 264 abstracts after duplicate removal, excluding 239 not meeting inclusion criteria. Of the 25 full-texts assessed, 15 were excluded for outcome mismatch, leaving 10 for data extraction. Data were thereafter extracted including population characteristics, ML methods, and diagnostic metrics: area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Most studies used retrospective cohorts from electronic records or national databases. Sample sizes ranged from 9,069 to over 2.9 million. AUCs ranged from 0.78 to 0.97, with top-performing models (AUC ≥ 0.94) using random forest algorithms and variables like age, heart rate, triage level. Meta-analysis of six studies showed pooled sensitivity of 0.78 and specificity of 0.76 (AUC = 0.84), though heterogeneity was high (I
conclusionML models have potential for paediatric ED triage. Standardized methods, explainable AI, and prospective validation are essential for clinical use. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Traditional triage in paediatric emergency departments may have limitations in accurately predicting hospital admissions. • Machine learning models are increasingly applied to improve risk stratification in clinical settings. WHAT IS NEW: • This review shows ML models can predict paediatric ED admissions with high AUCs (up to 0.97). • Random forest algorithms using vital signs and triage data performed best.
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.