Machine Learning–Based Prediction of Clinical Outcomes for Children During Emergency Department Triage
Open accessAbstract
Importance: While machine learning approaches may enhance prediction ability, little is known about their utility in emergency department (ED) triage. Objectives: To examine the performance of machine learning approaches to predict clinical outcomes and disposition in children in the ED and to compare their performance with conventional triage approaches. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prognostic study of ED data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2015. A nationally representative sample of 52 037 children aged 18 years or younger who presented to the ED were included. Data analysis was performed in August 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes were critical care (admission to an intensive care unit and/or in-hospital death) and hospitalization (direct hospital admission or transfer). In the training set (70% random sample), using routinely available triage data as predictors (eg, demographic characteristics and vital signs), we derived 4 machine learning-based models: lasso regression, random forest, gradient-boosted decision tree, and deep neural network. In the test set (the remaining 30% of the sample), we measured the models' prediction performance by computing C statistics, prospective prediction results, and decision curves. These machine learning models were built for each outcome and compared with the reference model using the conventional triage classification information. Results: Of 52 037 eligible ED visits by children (median [interquartile range] age, 6 [2-14] years; 24 929 [48.0%] female), 163 (0.3%) had the critical care outcome and 2352 (4.5%) had the hospitalization outcome. For the critical care prediction, all machine learning approaches had higher discriminative ability compared with the reference model, although the difference was not statistically significant (eg, C statistics of 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78-0.92] for the deep neural network vs 0.78 [95% CI, 0.71-0.85] for the reference; P = .16), and lower number of undertriaged critically ill children in the conventional triage levels 3 to 5 (urgent to nonurgent). For the hospitalization prediction, all machine learning approaches had significantly higher discrimination ability (eg, C statistic, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.78-0.81] for the deep neural network vs 0.73 [95% CI, 0.71-0.75] for the reference; P < .001) and fewer overtriaged children who did not require inpatient management in the conventional triage levels 1 to 3 (immediate to urgent). The decision curve analysis demonstrated a greater net benefit of machine learning models over ranges of clinical thresholds. Conclusions and Relevance: Machine learning-based triage had better discrimination ability to predict clinical outcomes and disposition, with reduction in undertriaging critically ill children and overtriaging children who are less ill.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Medical AI is cost-effective, scalable, and often provides expert-level accuracy or outperforms human providers.
“Algorithmic-based healthcare services (medical 'artificial intelligence' (AI)) are cost-effective and scalable and provide expert-level accuracy in applications ranging from the detection of skin cancer 5 and emergency department triage 6,7 to diagnoses of COVID-19 from chest X-rays 8 .”
From Understanding, explaining, and utilizing medical artificial intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 285
- Authors
- Goto, T., Camargo, C. A., Faridi, M. K., Freishtat, R. J., & Hasegawa, K.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Children's National (US)
- Corresponding author
- Goto, Tadahiro
- Venue
- JAMA Network Open
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2019-01-11
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e186937
- ISSN
- 2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6484561
- OpenAlex
- W2909953525
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 9
- FWCI
- 37.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- machine learning prediction, clinical outcome prediction, intensive care unit admission, in-hospital mortality, hospitalization prediction, LASSO, random forest, gradient boosting decision tree, deep neural network, undertriage, National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, prediction model discrimination, decision curves, vital signs, emergency department visits
- MeSH terms
- Critical Care Outcomes, Machine Learning, Adolescent, Child, Child, Hospitalized, Child, Preschool, Critical Care, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Triage, United States, Models, Educational, Quality Improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review