The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 46 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To predict hospital admission at the time of ED triage using patient history in addition to information collected at triage. METHODS: This retrospective study included all adult ED visits between March 2014 and July 2017 from one academic and two community emergency rooms that resulted in either admission or discharge. A total of 972 variables were extracted per patient visit. Samples were randomly partitioned into training (80%), validation (10%), and test (10%) sets. We trained a series of nine binary classifiers using logistic regression (LR), gradient boosting (XGBoost), and deep neural networks (DNN) on three dataset types: one using only triage information, one using only patient history, and one using the full set of variables. Next, we tested the potential benefit of additional training samples by training models on increasing fractions of our data. Lastly, variables of importance were identified using information gain as a metric to create a low-dimensional model. RESULTS: A total of 560,486 patient visits were included in the study, with an overall admission risk of 29.7%. Models trained on triage information yielded a test AUC of 0.87 for LR (95% CI 0.86-0.87), 0.87 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.87-0.88) and 0.87 for DNN (95% CI 0.87-0.88). Models trained on patient history yielded an AUC of 0.86 for LR (95% CI 0.86-0.87), 0.87 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.87-0.87) and 0.87 for DNN (95% CI 0.87-0.88). Models trained on the full set of variables yielded an AUC of 0.91 for LR (95% CI 0.91-0.91), 0.92 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.92-0.93) and 0.92 for DNN (95% CI 0.92-0.92). All algorithms reached maximum performance at 50% of the training set or less. A low-dimensional XGBoost model built on ESI level, outpatient medication counts, demographics, and hospital usage statistics yielded an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.91-0.91). CONCLUSION: Machine learning can robustly predict hospital admission using triage information and patient history. The addition of historical information improves predictive performance significantly compared to using triage information alone, highlighting the need to incorporate these variables into prediction models.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Machine learning models using electronic health record data predicted hospital admission at ED triage, with full-variable models reaching test AUCs of 0.91–0.92. Adding patient history significantly improved performance over triage information alone.
Key findings
- Among 560,486 adult ED visits with an overall admission risk of 29.7%, full-variable models achieved test AUC 0.91 for logistic regression, 0.92 for XGBoost, and 0.92 for deep neural networks; triage-only and history-only models achieved AUCs around 0.86–0.87.
- A low-dimensional XGBoost model using ESI level, outpatient medication counts, demographics, and hospital usage statistics yielded an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.91–0.91).
- All algorithms reached maximum performance at 50% of the training set or less; logistic regression reached it at 10%, while XGBoost and DNN reached it at 50%.
- XGBoost and DNN outperformed logistic regression on the full dataset, with no significant difference between XGBoost and DNN across the three dataset types.
Methods
- Retrospective study of all adult ED visits between March 2014 and July 2017 from one academic and two community EDs that ended in admission or discharge; 972 variables were extracted per visit, and 560,486 visits were randomly partitioned into training (80%), validation (10%), and test (10%) sets.
- Nine binary classifiers were trained using logistic regression, XGBoost, and deep neural networks on three dataset types: triage information only, patient history only, and the full variable set; hyperparameters were optimized by average validation AUC across five validation sets, and test AUCs were calculated with DeLong 95% CIs.
- Additional analyses trained full-variable models on increasing fractions of the training set (1%, 10%, 30%, 50%, 80%, 100%) and used information gain from 100 XGBoost iterations to identify important variables and build a low-dimensional model.
Limitations
- The paper states that patient history was restricted to previous ED visits, and expanding to outpatient or inpatient data may improve performance but could present EHR integration and differing-standards difficulties.
- The paper states that data came from one hospital system with multiple EDs and a large catchment area, and extending the approach to dense urban areas with multiple independent EDs may be difficult because patients may not consistently present to the same system.
- The paper states that the outcome label was the ED provider’s prior disposition decision, so appropriateness of individual clinical decisions could not be assessed, and it does not address implementation or efficacy barriers in clinical practice; evident from the text, the study is retrospective, adult-only, excludes non-admission/discharge dispositions, and uses a held-out test set from the same health system rather than external validation.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 46 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Models trained on triage information yielded a test AUC of 0.87 for LR (95% CI 0.86–0.87), 0.87 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.87–0.88) and 0.87 for DNN (95% CI 0.87–0.88).”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Abstract > Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the addition of patient history improves predictive performance significantly compared to using triage information alone”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as did prior hospital usage statistics such as the number of admissions within the past year and the disposition of the previous ED visit.”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For LR, the 95% CI of the AUC of the model trained on 10% of the training set contained the AUC of the model trained on the entire training set.”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Results > Testing the benefit of additional training samples
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Models trained on patient history yielded an AUC of 0.86 for LR (95% CI 0.86–0.87), 0.87 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.87–0.87) and 0.87 for DNN (95% CI 0.87–0.88).”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 560,486Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Models trained on the full set of variables yielded an AUC of 0.91 for LR (95% CI 0.91–0.91), 0.92 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.92–0.93) and 0.92 for DNN (95% CI 0.92–0.92).”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Abstract > Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Variables correlated with age and markers of socioeconomic status such as insurance type were some of the other features identified by our model”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All algorithms reached maximum performance at 50% of the training set or less.”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 560,486Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“XGBoost and DNN outperformed LR on the full dataset, while there was no significant difference in performance between XGBoost and DNN across all three dataset types.”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Results > Model performance
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Models trained on the full set of variables yielded an AUC of 0.91 for LR (95% CI 0.91–0.91), 0.92 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.92–0.93) and 0.92 for DNN (95% CI 0.92–0.92).”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Abstract > Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 5
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All three algorithms reach maximum performance at 50% of the training set or less.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
“we train our models on increasing fractions of the training set and show that the AUC plateaus well below the full training set.”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Results > Testing the benefit of additional training samples
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
In the paper
“While most emergency department (ED) visits end in discharge, EDs represent the largest source of hospital admissions [1].”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Moore B, Stocks C, Owens P. Trends in Emergency Department Visits, 2006–2014. HCUP Statistical Brief #227 [Internet]. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2017 Sep. Available: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb227-Emergency-Department-Visit-Trends.pdf
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It is increasingly understood that ED crowding is correlated with poorer patient outcomes [10].”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] SL Bernstein, 2009, The Effect of Emergency Department Crowding on Clinically Oriented Outcomes, Acad Emerg Med source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the importance of medication counts in the model may either reflect a proxy feature for medical complexity or indicate that polypharmacy itself is a risk factor [42,43].”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] CM Hohl, 2001, Polypharmacy, adverse drug-related events, and potential adverse drug interactions in elderly patients presenting to an emergency department, Ann Emerg Med source
- Not checked yetcites [43] A Banerjee, 2011, The prevalence of polypharmacy in elderly attenders to an emergency department—a problem with a need for an effective solution, Int J Emerg Med source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Notably, a progressive modeling approach that uses information available at later time-points, such as lab tests ordered, medications given, and diagnoses entered by the ED provider during the patient’s current visit, has been able to achieve high predictive power and indicates the utility of these features [20,21].”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Y Barak-Corren, 2017, Progressive prediction of hospitalisation in the emergency department: uncovering hidden patterns to improve patient flow, Emerg Med J source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Y Barak-Corren, 2017, Early Prediction Model of Patient Hospitalization From the Pediatric Emergency Department, Pediatrics source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Samples were randomly partitioned into training (80%), validation (10%), and test (10%) sets.”
- Also stated in: § Model fitting and evaluation · plain
“A randomly chosen test set of 56,000 (10%) samples was held out, then the remaining 504,486 (90%) samples split randomly five times to create five independent validation sets of 56,000 (10%) and training sets of 448,486 (80%).”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Abstract > Methods
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Model fitting and evaluation · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“that have been previously linked to hospital admission [46–48].”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] AW Selassie, 2003, The Influence of Insurance, Race, and Gender on Emergency Department Disposition, Acad Emerg Med source
- Not checked yetcites [47] Jiang HJ, Russo CA, Barrett ML. Nationwide Frequency and Costs of Potentially Preventable Hospitalizations, 2006. HCUP Statistical Brief #72 [Internet]. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009 Apr. Available: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb72.pdf
- Not checked yetcites [48] S Kangovi, 2013, Understanding Why Patients Of Low Socioeconomic Status Prefer Hospitals Over Ambulatory Care, Health Aff (Millwood) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As a recent work showed that using all elements of the electronic health record can robustly predict in-patient outcomes [26]”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] A Rajkomar, 2018, Scalable and accurate deep learning for electronic health records, Npj Digit Med source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Logistic regression and Naive Bayes are commonly used [9,11,16,18–22], with few studies using more complex algorithms like random-forests, artificial neural networks, and support vector machines [12,15,17].”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Y Sun, 2011, Predicting hospital admissions at emergency department triage using routine administrative data, Acad Emerg Med source
- Not checked yetcites [11] JS Peck, 2012, Predicting emergency department inpatient admissions to improve same-day patient flow, Acad Emerg Med source
- Not checked yetcites [16] J Leegon, 2005, Predicting Hospital Admission for Emergency Department Patients using a Bayesian Network, AMIA Annu Symp Proc
- Not checked yetcites [18] DW Savage, 2017, P112: Predicting patient admission from the emergency department using triage administrative data, Can J Emerg Med source
- Not checked yetcites [19] JA Lucke, 2017, Early prediction of hospital admission for emergency department patients: a comparison between patients younger or older than 70 years, Emerg Med J
- Not checked yetcites [20] Y Barak-Corren, 2017, Progressive prediction of hospitalisation in the emergency department: uncovering hidden patterns to improve patient flow, Emerg Med J source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Y Barak-Corren, 2017, Early Prediction Model of Patient Hospitalization From the Pediatric Emergency Department, Pediatrics source
- Not checked yetcites [22] MM Dinh, 2016, The Sydney Triage to Admission Risk Tool (START) to predict Emergency Department Disposition: A derivation and internal validation study using retrospective state-wide data from New South Wales, Australia, BMC Emerg Med source
- Not checked yetcites [12] S Levin, 2017, Machine-Learning-Based Electronic Triage More Accurately Differentiates Patients With Respect to Clinical Outcomes Compared With the Emergency Severity Index, Ann Emerg Med
- Not checked yetcites [15] J Leegon, 2006, Predicting Hospital Admission in a Pediatric Emergency Department using an Artificial Neural Network, AMIA Annu Symp Proc
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Prior models that incorporate past medical history utilize simplified chronic disease categories such as heart disease or diabetes [9,12] while leaving out rich historical information accessible from the electronic health record (EHR) such as outpatient medications and historical labs and vitals”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Y Sun, 2011, Predicting hospital admissions at emergency department triage using routine administrative data, Acad Emerg Med source
- Not checked yetcites [12] S Levin, 2017, Machine-Learning-Based Electronic Triage More Accurately Differentiates Patients With Respect to Clinical Outcomes Compared With the Emergency Severity Index, Ann Emerg Med
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Notification of administrators and inpatient teams regarding potential admissions may help alleviate this problem [11].”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] JS Peck, 2012, Predicting emergency department inpatient admissions to improve same-day patient flow, Acad Emerg Med source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“while some models include additional features such as hospital usage statistics and past medical history [9,12,20,21].”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Y Sun, 2011, Predicting hospital admissions at emergency department triage using routine administrative data, Acad Emerg Med source
- Not checked yetcites [12] S Levin, 2017, Machine-Learning-Based Electronic Triage More Accurately Differentiates Patients With Respect to Clinical Outcomes Compared With the Emergency Severity Index, Ann Emerg Med
- Not checked yetcites [20] Y Barak-Corren, 2017, Progressive prediction of hospitalisation in the emergency department: uncovering hidden patterns to improve patient flow, Emerg Med J source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Y Barak-Corren, 2017, Early Prediction Model of Patient Hospitalization From the Pediatric Emergency Department, Pediatrics source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Lastly, this study does not address the implementation and efficacy barriers present in clinical practice [53].”
§ Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [53] SM Schenkel, 2018, Triage, Machine Learning, Algorithms, and Becoming the Borg, Ann Emerg Med
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Gradient boosting and deep neural networks have not been applied to the task of predicting admission at ED triage to date.
“While gradient boosting and deep neural networks have been shown to be powerful tools for predictive modeling, neither has been applied to the task of predicting admission at ED triage to date.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The three EDs studied are representative of EDs generally, so the models' performance generalizes to other settings.
“Machine learning can robustly predict hospital admission using triage information and patient history.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The historical information available in the EHR at the time of triage is sufficiently complete and accurate to predict admission.
“For each patient visit, we collected a total of 972 variables, divided into major categories shown in Table 1.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The ED provider's prior decision is a valid ground truth for hospital admission.
“Throughout this study, we predict patient disposition by using the ED provider's prior decision as our true label.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The variables used in the models are available at the time of emergency department triage.
“Our study shows that machine learning can robustly predict hospital admission at emergency department (ED) triage”
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?
In the citing paper
“This represents state-of-the-art performance comparable with recent admission models (e.g. AUROC 0.825–0.87722–25).”
From Using explainable machine learning to characterise data drift and detect emergent health risks for emergency department admissions during COVID-19 (2021) · cites this paper as [24]
In the citing paper
“Hospital services can be managed more efficiently if accurate short-term forecasts for emergency demand are available8,9.”
From Machine learning for real-time aggregated prediction of hospital admission for emergency patients (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“Hong et al.9 showed that ML algorithms like gradient-boosted trees and deep neural networks, applied to a large EHR dataset of 972 variables, improved predictive performance.”
From Machine learning for real-time aggregated prediction of hospital admission for emergency patients (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“Using XGBoost, Barak-Corren et al.31 achieved AUROC of 0.87–0.93 with a 60 minute model, compared with 0.89 here, and Hong et al9 achieved 0.87 with triage data.”
From Machine learning for real-time aggregated prediction of hospital admission for emergency patients (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Conflicting descriptions of how model cutoffs were chosen
MinorThe methods say Youden's index determined the cutoff for each model. Table 3 instead says every model's cutoff was set to a fixed specificity of 0.85, chosen using Youden's index only on the full XGBoost model.
“Youden's index was used to find the optimal cutoff point on the ROC curve to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for each model [32,33].”
“The cutoff threshold for each model was set to match a fixed specificity of 0.85 to facilitate comparison. The value of 0.85 was chosen by using Youden’s Index on the full XGBoost model.”
Citations
Cites
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785 · Cited by 54,569
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649
pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves
Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J.-C., & Müller, M. (2011) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-12-77 · Cited by 13,697
Building Predictive Models in R Using the caret Package
Kuhn, M. (2008) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v028.i05 · Cited by 8,863
An introduction to variable and feature selection
GuyonIsabelle, & ElisseeffAndré (2003) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · doi:10.5555/944919.944968 · Cited by 8,354
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.02754 · Cited by 7,104
An Introduction to Variable and Feature Selection.
Guyon, I., & Elisseeff, A. (2003) · Cited by 6,576
Predicting the future - big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine
Obermeyer, Z., & Emanuel, E. J. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1606181 · Cited by 3,652
Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records
Rajkomar, A., Oren, E., Chen, K., Dai, A. M., Hajaj, N., Hardt, M., Liu, P. J., Liu, X., Marcus, J., Sun, M., et al. (2018) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-018-0029-1 · Cited by 2,648
Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records.
Rajkomar, A., Oren, E., Chen, K., Dai, A. M., Hajaj, N., Hardt, M., Liu, P. J., Liu, X., Marcus, J., Sun, M., et al. (2018) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 2,242
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- M Kuhn, 2013, Chapter 3. Data Pre-processing. Applied Predictive Modeling, Springer Science & Business Media, 27
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Emergency department triage prediction of clinical outcomes using machine learning models
Raita, Y., Goto, T., Faridi, M. K., Brown, D., Camargo, C. A., & Hasegawa, K. (2019) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-019-2351-7 · Cited by 556
Fernandes, M. P., Vieira, S. M., Leite, F., Palos, C., Finkelstein, S. N., & Sousa, J. M. C. (2019) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2019.101762 · Cited by 341
Counterfactual Explanations and Algorithmic Recourses for Machine Learning: A Review
Verma, S., Boonsanong, V., Hoang, M., Hines, K., Dickerson, J. P., & Shah, C. S. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3677119 · Cited by 723
Counterfactual Explanations and Algorithmic Recourses for Machine Learning: A Review
Verma, S., Boonsanong, V., Hoang, M., Hines, K. E., Dickerson, J. P., & Shah, C. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.10596 · Cited by 267
Application of the XGBoost Machine Learning Method in PM2.5 Prediction: A Case Study of Shanghai
Ma, J., Yu, Z., Qu, Y., Xu, J., & Cao, Y. (2019) · Aerosol and Air Quality Research · doi:10.4209/aaqr.2019.08.0408 · Cited by 242
Klug, M., Barash, Y., Bechler, S., Resheff, Y. S., Tron, T., Ironi, A., Soffer, S., Zimlichman, E., & Klang, E. (2019) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05512-7 · Cited by 120
Machine learning methods applied to triage in emergency services: A systematic review
Sánchez-Salmerón, R., Gómez‐Urquiza, J. L., Albendín‐García, L., Correa‐Rodríguez, M., Martos-Cabrera, M. B., Velando‐Soriano, A., & Suleiman‐Martos, N. (2021) · International Emergency Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ienj.2021.101109 · Cited by 127
Duckworth, C., Chmiel, F. P., Burns, D. K., Zlatev, Z. D., White, N. M., Daniels, T. W. V., Kiuber, M., & Boniface, M. J. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-02481-y · Cited by 109
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Triage in Hospital Emergency Departments: A Scoping Review
Tyler, S., Olis, M., Aust, N., Patel, L., Simon, L., Triantafyllidis, C., Patel, V., Lee, D. W., Ginsberg, B., Ahmad, H., et al. (2024) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.59906 · Cited by 130
Ivanov, O., Wolf, L. A., Brecher, D., Lewis, E., Masek, K., Montgomery, K., Andrieiev, Y., McLaughlin, M., Liu, S., Dunne, R., et al. (2020) · Journal of Emergency Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.jen.2020.11.001 · Cited by 110
Applications of Machine Learning Approaches in Emergency Medicine; a Review Article.
Shafaf, N., & Malek, H. (2019) · Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.22037/aaem.v7i1.410 · Cited by 99
Mothilal, R. K., Mahajan, D., Tan, C., & Sharma, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462597 · Cited by 103
MSCryptoNet: Multi-Scheme Privacy-Preserving Deep Learning in Cloud Computing
Kwabena, O.-A., Qin, Z., Zhuang, T., & Qin, Z. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2901219 · Cited by 92
Machine learning for real-time aggregated prediction of hospital admission for emergency patients
King, Z., Farrington, J., Utley, M., Kung, E., Elkhodair, S., Harris, S., Sekula, R., Gillham, J., Li, K., & Crowe, S. (2022) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-022-00649-y · Cited by 87
Chong, L. R., Tsai, K. T., Lee, L. L., Foo, S. G., & Chang, P. C. (2020) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.19.22594 · Cited by 87
Boonstra, A., & Laven, M. (2022) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08070-7 · Cited by 87
Padula, W. V., Kreif, N., Vanness, D. J., Adamson, B. J. S., Rueda, J. D., Felizzi, F., Jonsson, P. F., IJzerman, M. J., Butte, A. J., & Crown, W. H. (2022) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2022.03.022 · Cited by 92
Fernandes, M. P., Mendes, R., Vieira, S. M., Leite, F., Palos, C., Johnson, A. E. W., Finkelstein, S. N., Horng, S., & Celi, L. A. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229331 · Cited by 84
Jiang, H., Mao, H., Lu, H., Lin, P., Garry, W., Lu, H., Yang, G., Rainer, T. H., & Chen, X. (2020) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104326 · Cited by 86
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Emergency Medicine
Tang, K. J. W., Ang, C. K. E., Constantinides, T., Rajinikanth, V., Acharya, U. R., & Cheong, K. H. (2020) · Journal of Applied Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.bbe.2020.12.002 · Cited by 83
Salman, O. H., Taha, Z. K., Alsabah, M. Q., Hussein, Y. S., Mohammed, A. S., & Aal-Nouman, M. I. (2021) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106357 · Cited by 90
Choi, S. W., Ko, T., Hong, K. J., & Kim, K. H. (2019) · Healthcare Informatics Research · doi:10.4258/hir.2019.25.4.305 · Cited by 80
Real-World Evidence, Causal Inference, and Machine Learning
Crown, W. H. (2019) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.03.001 · Cited by 80
Miles, J., Turner, J., Jacques, R., Williams, J., & Mason, S. M. (2020) · Diagnostic and Prognostic Research · doi:10.1186/s41512-020-00084-1 · Cited by 83
A validation of machine learning-based risk scores in the prehospital setting
Spangler, D., Hermansson, T., Smékal, D., & Blomberg, H. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226518 · Cited by 72
Sudarshan, V. K., Brabrand, M., Range, T. M., & Wiil, U. K. (2021) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104541 · Cited by 77
Xu, Y., Yang, X., Huang, H., Chen, P., Ge, Y., Wu, H., Wang, J., Xiong, G., & Yi, Y. (2019) · Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.104441 · Cited by 68
Roquette, B. P., Nagano, H., Marujo, E. C., & Maiorano, A. C. (2020) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2020.03.012 · Cited by 72
De Hond, A., Raven, W., Schinkelshoek, L., Gaakeer, M., Ter Avest, E., Sir, O., Lameijer, H., Hessels, R. A., Reijnen, R., De Jonge, E., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104496 · Cited by 66
The role of AI in emergency department triage: An integrative systematic review
Arab, R. A. E., & Moosa, O. A. A. (2025) · Intensive and Critical Care Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104058 · Cited by 79
Arslan, B., Nuhoğlu, Ç., Satıcı, M. O., & Altınbilek, E. (2024) · The American Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2024.12.024 · Cited by 72
Cos, H., Li, D., Williams, G., Chininis, J., Dai, R., Zhang, J., Srivastava, R., Raper, L., Sanford, D., Hawkins, W., et al. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/23595 · Cited by 63
Lee, J.-T., Hsieh, C., Lin, C., Lin, Y.-J., & Kao, C. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-98961-2 · Cited by 58
Joseph, J. W., Leventhal, E. L., Grossestreuer, A. V., Wong, M. L., Joseph, L. J., Nathanson, L. A., Donnino, M. W., Elhadad, N., & Sanchez, L. D. (2020) · doi:10.1101/2020.05.02.20089052 · Cited by 57
Machine learning in patient flow: a review
El-Bouri, R., Taylor, T., Youssef, A., Zhu, T., & Clifton, D. A. (2021) · Progress in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1088/2516-1091/abddc5 · Cited by 60
Applications of natural language processing at emergency department triage: A narrative review
Stewart, J. E., Lü, J., Goudie, A., Arendts, G., Meka, S., Freeman, S., Walker, K., Sprivulis, P., Sanfilippo, F. M., Bennamoun, M., et al. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279953 · Cited by 55
Arnaud, É., Elbattah, M., Gignon, M., & Dequen, G. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata50022.2020.9378073 · Cited by 46
The aspects of running artificial intelligence in emergency care; a scoping review
(2023) · Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.22037/aaem.v11i1.1974 · Cited by 45
Fernandes, M. P., Mendes, R., Vieira, S. M., Leite, F., Palos, C., Johnson, A. E. W., Finkelstein, S. N., Horng, S., & Celi, L. A. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230876 · Cited by 45
Fenn, A., Davis, C., Buckland, D. M., Kapadia, N. N., Nichols, M., Gao, M. C., Knechtle, W. S., Balu, S., Sendak, M., & Theiling, J. (2021) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2021.02.029 · Cited by 45
The AI Future of Emergency Medicine
Petrella, R. J. (2024) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.01.031 · Cited by 43
Mowbray, F., Zargoush, M., Jones, A., de Wit, K., & Costa, A. P. (2020) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104163 · Cited by 43
Schiele, J., Koperna, T., & Brunner, J. O. (2020) · Naval Research Logistics (NRL) · doi:10.1002/nav.21929 · Cited by 48
Wang, B., Li, W., Bradlow, A., Bazuaye, E., & Chan, A. T. Y. (2022) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2022.113899 · Cited by 48
Chan, S. L., Lee, J. W., Ong, M. E. H., Siddiqui, F. J., Graves, N., Ho, A. F. W., & Liu, N. (2023) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2023.02.001 · Cited by 42
Predicting 72-hour and 9-day return to the emergency department using machine learning
Hong, W. S., Haimovich, A. D., & Taylor, R. A. (2019) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooz019 · Cited by 42
Self-citationYun, H., Choi, J., & Park, J. H. (2021) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/30770 · Cited by 45
Machine learning-based prediction of critical illness in children visiting the emergency department
Hwang, S., & Lee, B. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264184 · Cited by 42
Hunter-Zinck, H., Peck, J. S., Strout, T. D., & Gaehde, S. A. (2019) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz171 · Cited by 39
Martin, C., DeStefano, K., Haran, H., Zink, S., Dai, J., Ahmed, D., Razzak, A. N., Lin, K. K., Kogler, A., Waller, J., et al. (2022) · Intelligence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ibmed.2022.100073 · Cited by 40
Klang, E., Kummer, B. R., Dangayach, N. S., Zhong, A., Kia, A., Timsina, P., Cossentino, I., Costa, A. B., Levin, M. A., & Oermann, E. K. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-80985-3 · Cited by 42
Akbar, N. A., Sunyoto, A., Arief, M. R., & Caesarendra, W. (2020) · International Conference on Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber and Information System (ICIMCIS) · doi:10.1109/icimcis51567.2020.9354286 · Cited by 37
Porto, B. M., & Fogliatto, F. S. (2024) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-024-02788-6 · Cited by 35
Predicting Outpatient Appointment Demand Using Machine Learning and Traditional Methods
Klute, B., Homb, A. C., Chen, W., & Stelpflug, A. (2019) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-019-1418-y · Cited by 35
Predicting postpartum psychiatric admission using a machine learning approach
Betts, K. S., Kisely, S. R., & Alati, R. (2020) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.07.002 · Cited by 35
Yoo, J., Hur, S., Hwang, W., & Cha, W. C. (2023) · Healthcare Informatics Research · doi:10.4258/hir.2023.29.1.64 · Cited by 34
Challenges in evaluating the accuracy of AI-containing digital triage systems: A systematic review
Ilicki, J. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279636 · Cited by 33
Emergency Severity Index Version 4 and Triage of Pediatric Emergency Department Patients
Sax, D. R., Warton, E. M., Kene, M. V., Ballard, D. W., Vitale-McDowell, T. J., Timm, J. A., Adams, E. S., McGauhey, K. R., Pines, J. M., Reed, M., et al. (2024) · Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.2671 · Cited by 33
Wirth, W., Schwarzkopf, L., Skerratt, L. F., & Ariel, E. (2018) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.6083 · Cited by 32
Application of artificial intelligence technology in the field of orthopedics: a narrative review
Liu, P., Zhang, J., Liu, S., Huo, T., He, J., Xue, M., Fang, Y., Wang, H., Xie, Y., Xie, M., et al. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-023-10638-6 · Cited by 34
Arnaud, É., Elbattah, M., Ammirati, C., Dequen, G., & Ghazali, D. A. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19159667 · Cited by 30
Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support
De‐Arteaga, M., Jeanselme, V., Dubrawski, A. W., & Chouldechova, A. (2025) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2022.01576 · Cited by 53
Kwon, Y. S., & Baek, M. S. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm9030875 · Cited by 31
Chang, H., Yu, J. Y., Yoon, S., Kim, T., & Cha, W. C. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-14422-4 · Cited by 29
Nguyen, Q., Wybrow, M., Burstein, F., Taylor, D., & Enticott, J. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274493 · Cited by 29
Ahmed, A., Ashour, O. M., Ali, H., & Firouz, M. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117314 · Cited by 33
Using emergency department triage for machine learning-based admission and mortality prediction
Tschoellitsch, T., Seidl, P., Böck, C., Maletzky, A., Moser, P., Thumfart, S., Giretzlehner, M., Hochreiter, S., & Meier, J. M. (2023) · European Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1097/mej.0000000000001068 · Cited by 28
Cardiovascular Disease Prediction Using Gradient Boosting Classifier
Suhendra, R., Husdayanti, N., Suryadi, S., Juliwardi, I., Sanusi, S., Ridho, A., Ardiansyah, M. F., Murhaban, M., & Ikhsan, I. (2023) · Infolitika Journal of Data Science · doi:10.60084/ijds.v1i2.131 · Cited by 28
Nguyen, M., Corbin, C. K., Eulalio, T. Y., Ostberg, N. P., Machiraju, G., Marafino, B. J., Baiocchi, M., Rose, C. C., & Chen, J. H. (2021) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab118 · Cited by 30
Meyer, L. M., Stead, S., Salge, T. O., & Antons, D. (2024) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123568 · Cited by 28
Emergency Department Triage Accuracy and Delays in Care for High-Risk Conditions
Sax, D. R., Warton, E. M., Mark, D. G., & Reed, M. E. (2025) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.8498 · Cited by 27
Leveraging graph neural networks for supporting automatic triage of patients
Defilippo, A., Veltri, P., Lió, P., & Guzzi, P. H. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-63376-2 · Cited by 26
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Emergency Medicine: Balancing Opportunities and Challenges
Amiot, F., Potier, B., Viard, T., Tellier, É., & Peschanski, N. (2025) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/70903 · Cited by 37
Kim, D., Oh, J., Im, H., Yoon, M. S., Park, J., & Lee, J. (2021) · Journal of Korean Medical Science · doi:10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e175 · Cited by 26
NLP-Based Prediction of Medical Specialties at Hospital Admission Using Triage Notes
Arnaud, É., Elbattah, M., Gignon, M., & Dequen, G. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI) · doi:10.1109/ichi52183.2021.00103 · Cited by 26
Explainable AI for enhanced accuracy in malaria diagnosis using ensemble machine learning models
Awe, O. O., Mwangi, P. N., Goudoungou, S. K., Esho, R., & Oyejide, O. S. (2025) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-025-02874-3 · Cited by 30
Pirneskoski, J., Tamminen, J., Kallonen, A., Nurmi, J. O., Kuisma, M., Olkkola, K. T., & Hoppu, S. (2020) · Resuscitation Plus · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2020.100046 · Cited by 28
Machine learning for outcome predictions of patients with trauma during emergency department care
Cardosi, J. D., Shen, H., Groner, J. I., Armstrong, M., & Xiang, H. (2021) · BMJ Health & Care Informatics · doi:10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100407 · Cited by 28
Systems Engineer Program, U. D. C. Y. H., Ponce, E. K., Huamaní, E. L., & Delgado, A. (2022) · International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering · doi:10.46338/ijetae0222_09 · Cited by 23
Patel, D. D., Cheetirala, S. N., Raut, G., Tamegue, J., Kia, A., Glicksberg, B. S., Freeman, R., Levin, M. A., Timsina, P., & Klang, E. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm11236888 · Cited by 23
Predicting Hospital Admissions to Reduce Crowding in the Emergency Departments
Cusidó, J., Comalrena, J., Alavi, H., & Llunas, L. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app122110764 · Cited by 21
Shahbandegan, A., Mago, V., Alaref, A. A., van der Pol, C. B., & Savage, D. W. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278229 · Cited by 21
Generating contextual embeddings for emergency department chief complaints
Chang, D., Hong, W. S., & Taylor, R. A. (2020) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaa022 · Cited by 20
Self-citationWilliams, E., Huynh, D., Estai, M., Sinha, T., Summerscales, M., & Kanagasingam, Y. (2025) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings Digital Health · doi:10.1016/j.mcpdig.2025.100197 · Cited by 25
Chiu, Y. M., Courteau, J., Dufour, I., Vanasse, A., & Hudon, C. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-27568-6 · Cited by 20
Monahan, A. C., & Feldman, S. S. (2021) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/30022 · Cited by 20
Hozawa, S., Maeda, S., Kikuchi, A., & Koinuma, M. (2021) · Journal of Asthma · doi:10.1080/02770903.2021.1923740 · Cited by 19
Artificial intelligence in emergency medicine: a primer for the nonexpert
Smith, M. E., Zalesky, C. C., Lee, S., Gottlieb, M., Adhikari, S., Goebel, M., Wegman, M., Garg, N., & Lam, S. H. F. (2025) · JACEP Open · doi:10.1016/j.acepjo.2025.100051 · Cited by 18
Larsson, A. H., Berg, J., Gellerfors, M., & Wärnberg, M. G. (2021) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-021-01558-y · Cited by 18
Lin, Y.-T., Deng, Y.-X., Tsai, C., Huang, C., & Fu, L. (2024) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/48862 · Cited by 19
Predicting patient outcomes in psychiatric hospitals with routine data: a machine learning approach
Wolff, J., Gary, A., Jung, D., Normann, C., Kaier, K., Binder, H., Domschke, K., Klimke, A., & Franz, M. (2020) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-020-1042-2 · Cited by 22
Seo, H., Ahn, I., Gwon, H., Kang, H. J., Kim, Y., Cho, H. N., Choi, H., Kim, M., Han, J., Kee, G., et al. (2023) · Health Care Management Science · doi:10.1007/s10729-023-09660-5 · Cited by 17
Chen, T., Huang, T.-Y., & Chang, Y. (2024) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104657 · Cited by 17
Gunasekeran, D. V., Liu, Z., Tan, W. J., Koh, J., Cheong, C. P., Tan, L. H., Lau, C. S., Phuah, G. K., Manuel, N. D. A., Chia, C. C., et al. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/17417 · Cited by 18
Haimovich, A. D., Xu, W., Wei, A., Schonberg, M. A., Hwang, U., & Taylor, R. A. (2023) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.18262 · Cited by 18
Self-citationMedical emergency department triage data processing using a machine-learning solution
Vântu, A., Vasilescu, A., & Băicoianu, A. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18402 · Cited by 16
Engelke, M., Baldini, G., Kleesiek, J., Nensa, F., & Dada, A. (2025) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaf165 · Cited by 15
Nam, S., Shin, M. Y., Han, J. Y., Moon, S. Y., Kim, J. Y., Tchah, H., & Lee, H. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-13344-5 · Cited by 15
Mehrpour, O., Hoyte, C. O., Delva‐Clark, H., Masud, A. A., Biswas, A. K., Schimmel, J., Nakhaee, S., & Goss, F. R. (2022) · Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology · doi:10.1111/bcpt.13800 · Cited by 15
Predicting Hospital Ward Admission from the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review
Larburu, N., Azkue, L., & Kerexeta, J. (2023) · Journal of Personalized Medicine · doi:10.3390/jpm13050849 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Hong, W. S., Haimovich, A. D., & Taylor, R. A.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Taylor, R. Andrew
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2018-07-20
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e0201016
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6054406
- OpenAlex
- W2884597820
- Semantic Scholar
- d012519a924e41aa7ff49d9b6be58033bd60fd9c
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 51 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 12.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (1F30CA196191, T32GM007205)
- Yale School of Medicine
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- emergency department triage, hospital admission prediction, medical history, Emergency Severity Index, hospital utilization, XGBoost, deep neural network, logistic regression, feature importance, information gain, low-dimensional models, training data size, model generalization, clinical decision support
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Adult, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Admission, Patient Discharge, Triage, Models, Statistical
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
