ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2026
Predicting the Unpredictable: A Data-Driven Machine Learning Model for Emergency Department Waiting Room Surge Status.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop a machine learning algorithm to predict emergency department (ED) waiting room surge status (green, yellow, and red categories) 4, 8, and 12 hours in advance. Patients and Methods: We designed a retrospective cohort with prospective validation conducted between July 1, 2023, and April 30, 2025. A total of 154,956 encounters were analyzed; features included ED operational metrics and timestamps with 72-hour lagging data. Deep neural network and gradient boosted decision tree (XGBoost) models were trained to predict 3 predefined surge categories: green (<15 waiting patients; 48.8% of hours), yellow (15-30 waiting patients; 38.8% of the hours), and red (≥31 waiting patients; 12.3% of the hours). Results: The XGBoost model found strong predictive performance across all forecast horizons. Area under the curve (AUC) curves showed excellent discrimination between green and yellow levels, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 AUC across all time horizons, demonstrating reliable differentiation between normal and moderate surge conditions. The model showed acceptable discrimination for red levels, with AUCs of 0.76 and 0.77, meeting commonly accepted thresholds for clinical forecasting tools, particularly given the difficulty of predicting rare, high-volume situations. The operational accuracy of 68% to 70% showed strong real-world multiclass operational forecasting over prolonged windows up to 12 hours in advance. Conclusion: Using operational metrics with timestamps, XGBoost models can differentiate between different levels of ED surge states with meaningful accuracy. This ability to forecast risk of high volumes provides a window of opportunity to proactively modify operations.
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.