ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Machine learning models to detect opioid misuse in Emergency Department patients at triage.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Emergency department (ED) encounters represent valuable opportunities to initiate evidence-based treatments for patients with opioid misuse, but few receive such care. Universal manual screening has been proposed to improve patient identification but is uncommon due to its time and resource-intensive nature. We sought to determine the feasibility of identifying patients with opioid misuse at the time of ED triage using machine learning (ML). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1,123 ED encounters (September 2020 - March 2023) at a tertiary hospital. Encounters were enriched for opioid misuse, manually annotated, and chronologically split for training, validation, and testing. Candidate triage-time features included patient demographics, Emergency Severity Index, arrival time of day, chief complaint, comorbidities, and chronic medications. Model performance was evaluated using F1 score, area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), accuracy, recall, and AUROC. Post-hoc explainability analyses included SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and feature importance. Results: All models performed comparably to opioid-related diagnosis codes placed at any time during the encounter. Random Forest (F1=0.75 [95%CI 0.70-0.83], AUPRC=0.88 [0.81-0.93], accuracy=0.79 [0.70-0.83]) and Gradient Boosting (F1=0.77 [0.71-0.82], AUPRC=0.89 [0.85-0.93], accuracy=0.81 [0.720.84]) had among the highest F1 score and AUPRC but confidence intervals overlapped with other methods. Explainability analyses highlighted prior drug-use diagnosis codes, triage acuity, and age as top predictors. Conclusion: ML classifiers leveraging routinely collected triage data offer a feasible alternative to manual screening in flagging opioid misuse before physician evaluation, potentially enabling early harm-reduction interventions. Prospective multi-site validation, calibration, and bias assessments are warranted.
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.