ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
An ensemble model for predicting dispositions of emergency department patients.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Predicting emergency department disposition using machine learning and large language models to support proactive capacity management: a multicenter retrospective study.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- The incremental value of unstructured data via natural language processing in machine learning-based COVID-19 mortality prediction: a comparative study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Mapping artificial intelligence models in emergency medicine: A scoping review on artificial intelligence performance in emergency care and education.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
- Artificial intelligence: Revolutionizing pediatric emergency care - A narrative review.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe healthcare challenge driven by an aging population and rising demand is one of the most pressing issues leading to emergency department (ED) overcrowding. An emerging solution lies in machine learning's potential to predict ED dispositions, thus leading to promising substantial benefits. This study's objective is to create a predictive model for ED patient dispositions by employing ensemble learning. It harnesses diverse data types, including structured and unstructured information gathered during ED visits to address the evolving needs of localized healthcare systems.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 80,073 ED patient records were amassed from a major southern Taiwan hospital in 2018-2019. An ensemble model incorporated structured (demographics, vital signs) and pre-processed unstructured data (chief complaints, preliminary diagnoses) using bag-of-words (BOW) and term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF). Two random forest base-learners for structured and unstructured data were employed and then complemented by a multi-layer perceptron meta-learner.
resultsThe ensemble model demonstrates strong predictive performance for ED dispositions, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.94. The models based on unstructured data encoded with BOW and TF-IDF yield similar performance results. Among the structured features, the top five most crucial factors are age, pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, temperature, and acuity level. In contrast, the top five most important unstructured features are pneumonia, fracture, failure, suspect, and sepsis.
conclusionsFindings indicate that utilizing ensemble learning with a blend of structured and unstructured data proves to be a predictive method for determining ED dispositions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.