Cited by 20Emergency and Acute Care StudiesMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Machine learning to improve frequent emergency department use prediction: a retrospective cohort study

Open access
Chiu, Yohann M., Courteau, Josiane, Dufour, Isabelle, Vanasse, Alain, Hudon, Catherine·2023·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Frequent emergency department use is associated with many adverse events, such as increased risk for hospitalization and mortality. Frequent users have complex needs and associated factors are commonly evaluated using logistic regression. However, other machine learning models, especially those exploiting the potential of large databases, have been less explored. This study aims at comparing the performance of logistic regression to four machine learning models for predicting frequent emergency department use in an adult population with chronic diseases, in the province of Quebec (Canada). This is a retrospective population-based study using medical and administrative databases from the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec. Two definitions were used for frequent emergency department use (outcome to predict): having at least three and five visits during a year period. Independent variables included sociodemographic characteristics, healthcare service use, and chronic diseases. We compared the performance of logistic regression with gradient boosting machine, naïve Bayes, neural networks, and random forests (binary and continuous outcome) using Area under the ROC curve, sensibility, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Out of 451,775 ED users, 43,151 (9.5%) and 13,676 (3.0%) were frequent users with at least three and five visits per year, respectively. Random forests with a binary outcome had the lowest performances (ROC curve: 53.8 [95% confidence interval 53.5–54.0] and 51.4 [95% confidence interval 51.1–51.8] for frequent users 3 and 5, respectively) while the other models had superior and overall similar performance. The most important variable in prediction was the number of emergency department visits in the previous year. No model outperformed the others. Innovations in algorithms may slightly refine current predictions, but access to other variables may be more helpful in the case of frequent emergency department use prediction.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-023-27568-6

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches have demonstrated growing promise in diabetes risk prediction, complication detection and healthcare utilization forecasting.

    “More recently, machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches have demonstrated growing promise in diabetes risk prediction, complication detection and healthcare utilization forecasting [21–28].”

    From Machine learning-driven risk prediction for post-hospitalization diabetes case management: Integrating clinical and social determinants of health (2026) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Introduction and Discussion support machine-learning prediction of frequent emergency-department use, a form of healthcare utilization forecasting. The Discussion > Model performance also reports a separate study predicting uncontrolled diabetes, but that is not prediction of who will develop diabetes. Our copy does not support the complication-detection part of the claim, and its Conclusions say the models showed no clear superiority over simpler models for ED-use prediction. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [26]Hudon C Courteau J Chiu YM Chouinard MC Dubois MF Dubuc N Risk of frequent ED utilization among an ambulatory care sensitive condition population: a population-based cohort study Med. Care 2020 58 3 248 256 32049947

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chiu, Y. M., Courteau, J., Dufour, I., Vanasse, A., & Hudon, C.
Affiliations
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Chiu, Yohann M.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2023-02-03
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
1981-1981
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4319081168
Cited by
20
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4
FWCI
6.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
  • Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
  • Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’université de Sherbrooke
  • Québec SPOR SUPPORT Unit
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
emergency department visits, chronic disease, machine learning prediction models, random forest, gradient boosting, artificial neural networks, naive Bayes, logistic regression, health care utilization, hospitalization risk, Quebec
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Bayes Theorem, Chronic Disease, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Retrospective Studies

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