ReviewCureus2026
From Conventional to Intelligent Triage: A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Applications in Emergency Departments.
Review in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional triage systems in emergency departments (EDs) face limitations including subjectivity and variability. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) offer potential solutions. This systematic review evaluates AI/ML models for ED triage, focusing on model types, performance, and comparisons with conventional systems. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase was conducted (January 2021-April 2025). Studies applying AI/ML for ED triage with reported performance metrics were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used for risk of bias assessment. The protocol was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number: CRD420261407520). Narrative synthesis was performed. Eight retrospective or cross-sectional studies were included (n=2,000 to >2.6 million patients). XGBoost was the most consistently top-performing model (AUC: 0.76-0.96). Natural language processing (NLP) improved predictive accuracy when added to structured data. AI/ML outperformed conventional triage scales in direct comparisons (e.g., area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.991 vs. 0.844 for pediatric critical illness). PROBAST showed low bias in six studies, unclear in one, and high in one. No prospective implementation studies were identified. AI/ML models, especially XGBoost and NLP-enhanced architectures, show strong predictive performance for ED triage outcomes. However, retrospective designs, lack of external validation, and absent prospective data limit current evidence. Rigorous implementation research is needed before clinical adoption.
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.