Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42540130›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

From Conventional to Intelligent Triage: A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Applications in Emergency Departments.

Karar Omer Karar Bala, Rasha Abdelrahman Musharaf Abdelrahman, Eslam Abdelkawy, Ali Albalushi, Mohamed Abdalla Mohamed ElshikhIdris, Omer Kamal Omer, Hanady Me M Osman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Karar Omer Karar BalaEmergency Medicine, University of Medical Sciences and Technology, Khartoum, SDN.
Rasha Abdelrahman Musharaf AbdelrahmanUrgent Care, Mediclinic Al Ain Hospital, Al Ain, ARE.
Eslam AbdelkawyGeneral Internal Medicine, George Eliot Hospital, Nuneaton, GBR.
Ali AlbalushiPediatric Emergency Medicine, Sohar Hospital, Sohar, OMN.
Mohamed Abdalla Mohamed ElshikhIdrisGeneral Practice, Al Yarmouk College, Khartoum, SDN.
Omer Kamal OmerOrthopedic Surgery, Luton Hospital, Luton, GBR.
Hanady Me M OsmanQuality Improvement and Patient Safety, Najran Armed Forces Hospital, Ministry of Defense Health Services, Najran, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligenceemergency departmentmachine learningsystematic reviewtriagexgboost

Identifiers

PMID42540130
PMCPMC13425186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.