Dataset Information

Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Clinical Outcomes for Children During Emergency Department Triage.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Goto T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6484561 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDevelopment of emergency department (ED) triage systems that accurately differentiate and prioritize critically ill from stable patients remains challenging. We used machine learning models to predict clinical outcomes, and then compared their performance with that of a conventional approach-the Emergency Severity Index (ESI).MethodsUsing National Hospital and Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) ED data, from 2007 through 2015, we identified all adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years). In the randomly sampled training set (70%), using routinely available triage data as predictors (e.g., demographics, triage vital signs, chief complaints, comorbidities), we developed four machine learning models: Lasso regression, random forest, gradient boosted decision tree, and deep neural network. As the reference model, we constructed a logistic regression model using the five-level ESI data. The clinical outcomes were critical care (admission to intensive care unit or in-hospital death) and hospitalization (direct hospital admission or transfer). In the test set (the remaining 30%), we measured the predictive performance, including area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) and net benefit (decision curves) for each model.ResultsOf 135,470 eligible ED visits, 2.1% had critical care outcome and 16.2% had hospitalization outcome. In the critical care outcome prediction, all four machine learning models outperformed the reference model (e.g., AUC, 0.86 [95%CI 0.85-0.87] in the deep neural network vs 0.74 [95%CI 0.72-0.75] in the reference model), with less under-triaged patients in ESI triage levels 3 to 5 (urgent to non-urgent). Likewise, in the hospitalization outcome prediction, all machine learning models outperformed the reference model (e.g., AUC, 0.82 [95%CI 0.82-0.83] in the deep neural network vs 0.69 [95%CI 0.68-0.69] in the reference model) with less over-triages in ESI triage levels 1 to 3 (immediate to urgent). In the decision curve analysis, all machine learning models consistently achieved a greater net benefit-a larger number of appropriate triages considering a trade-off with over-triages-across the range of clinical thresholds.ConclusionsCompared to the conventional approach, the machine learning models demonstrated a superior performance to predict critical care and hospitalization outcomes. The application of modern machine learning models may enhance clinicians' triage decision making, thereby achieving better clinical care and optimal resource utilization.

Project description:ObjectiveTo predict hospital admission at the time of ED triage using patient history in addition to information collected at triage.MethodsThis 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionMachine 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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo demonstrate the incremental benefit of using free text data in addition to vital sign and demographic data to identify patients with suspected infection in the emergency department.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational cohort study performed at a tertiary academic teaching hospital. All consecutive ED patient visits between 12/17/08 and 2/17/13 were included. No patients were excluded. The primary outcome measure was infection diagnosed in the emergency department defined as a patient having an infection related ED ICD-9-CM discharge diagnosis. Patients were randomly allocated to train (64%), validate (20%), and test (16%) data sets. After preprocessing the free text using bigram and negation detection, we built four models to predict infection, incrementally adding vital signs, chief complaint, and free text nursing assessment. We used two different methods to represent free text: a bag of words model and a topic model. We then used a support vector machine to build the prediction model. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to compare the discriminatory power of each model.ResultsA total of 230,936 patient visits were included in the study. Approximately 14% of patients had the primary outcome of diagnosed infection. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the vitals model, which used only vital signs and demographic data, was 0.67 for the training data set, 0.67 for the validation data set, and 0.67 (95% CI 0.65-0.69) for the test data set. The AUC for the chief complaint model which also included demographic and vital sign data was 0.84 for the training data set, 0.83 for the validation data set, and 0.83 (95% CI 0.81-0.84) for the test data set. The best performing methods made use of all of the free text. In particular, the AUC for the bag-of-words model was 0.89 for training data set, 0.86 for the validation data set, and 0.86 (95% CI 0.85-0.87) for the test data set. The AUC for the topic model was 0.86 for the training data set, 0.86 for the validation data set, and 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.86) for the test data set.ConclusionCompared to previous work that only used structured data such as vital signs and demographic information, utilizing free text drastically improves the discriminatory ability (increase in AUC from 0.67 to 0.86) of identifying infection.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency departments (ED) are becoming increasingly overwhelmed, increasing poor outcomes. Triage scores aim to optimize the waiting time and prioritize the resource usage. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms offer advantages for creating predictive clinical applications.ObjectiveEvaluate a state-of-the-art machine learning model for predicting mortality at the triage level and, by validating this automatic tool, improve the categorization of patients in the ED.DesignAn institutional review board (IRB) approval was granted for this retrospective study. Information of consecutive adult patients (ages 18-100) admitted at the emergency department (ED) of one hospital were retrieved (January 1, 2012-December 31, 2018). Features included the following: demographics, admission date, arrival mode, referral code, chief complaint, previous ED visits, previous hospitalizations, comorbidities, home medications, vital signs, and Emergency Severity Index (ESI). The following outcomes were evaluated: early mortality (up to 2 days post ED registration) and short-term mortality (2-30 days post ED registration). A gradient boosting model was trained on data from years 2012-2017 and examined on data from the final year (2018). The area under the curve (AUC) for mortality prediction was used as an outcome metric. Single-variable analysis was conducted to develop a nine-point triage score for early mortality.Key resultsOverall, 799,522 ED visits were available for analysis. The early and short-term mortality rates were 0.6% and 2.5%, respectively. Models trained on the full set of features yielded an AUC of 0.962 for early mortality and 0.923 for short-term mortality. A model that utilized the nine features with the highest single-variable AUC scores (age, arrival mode, chief complaint, five primary vital signs, and ESI) yielded an AUC of 0.962 for early mortality.ConclusionThe gradient boosting model shows high predictive ability for screening patients at risk of early mortality utilizing data available at the time of triage in the ED.