ArticleBMC health services research2025
Interpretable machine learning models for prolonged Emergency Department wait time prediction.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effectiveness of Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Healthcare Service Quality Metrics: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Interpretable SHAP-based machine learning framework for patient satisfaction prediction: a case study in Thammasat University Hospital.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Emergency department wait time in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada: Trends and projections of physician initial assessment 2015-2026.PloS one · 2026Article
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
objectiveProlonged Emergency Department (ED) wait times lead to diminished healthcare quality. Utilizing machine learning (ML) to predict patient wait times could aid in ED operational management. Our aim is to perform a comprehensive analysis of ML models for ED wait time prediction, identify key feature importance and associations with prolonged wait times, and interpret prediction model clinical relevance among ED patients.
methodsThis is a single-centered retrospective study. We included ED patients assigned an Emergency Severity Index (ESI) level of 3 at triage. Patient wait times were categorized as <30 minutes and ≥30 minutes (prolonged wait time). We employed five ML algorithms - cross-validation logistic regression (CVLR), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), artificial neural network (ANN), and support vector machine (SVM) - for predicting patient prolonged wait times. Performance assessment utilized accuracy, recall, precision, F1 score, false positive rate (FPR), and false negative rate (FNR). Furthermore, using XGBoost as an example, model key features and partial dependency plots (PDP) of these key features were illustrated. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) were employed to interpret model outputs. Additionally, a top key feature interaction analysis was conducted.
resultsAmong total 177,665 patients, nearly half of them (48.20%, 85,632) experienced prolonged ED wait times. Though all five ML models exhibited similar performance, minimizing FNR is associated with the most clinical relevance for wait time predictions. The top features influencing patient wait times and gaining the top ranked interactions were ED crowding condition and patient mode of arrival.
conclusionsNearly half of the patients experienced prolonged wait times in the ED. ML models demonstrated acceptable performance, particularly in minimizing FNR when predicting ED wait times. The prediction of prolonged wait times was influenced by multiple interacting factors. Proper application of ML models to clinical practice requires interpreting their predictions of prolonged wait times in the context of clinical significance.
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.