ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Machine learning-based model for triage-stage prediction of emergency department disposition.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly disposition decisions in the emergency department (ED) are sometimes made before laboratory results, imaging, or diagnostic labels become available. We developed disposition prediction models using only triage-stage information and quantified the incremental gain from adding downstream clinical data within the same cohort.
methodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study at a secondary-level emergency medical facility in Japan, including adult ED encounters. The outcome was ED disposition, dichotomized as discharged home versus admission or worse (hospital admission, intensive care unit admission, death in the ED, or inter-hospital transfer). We trained L2-regularized logistic regression models using prespecified predictor sets. The Pre-test (triage-stage) model included demographics, trauma status, comorbidities, symptoms, and vital signs. The Clinical model was defined as the Pre-test model plus four binary clinical-process indicators (yes/no): blood gas analysis performed, computed tomography performed, magnetic resonance imaging performed, and consultation requested. The Comprehensive model was defined as the Clinical model plus laboratory tests and diagnosis-related variables. Discrimination was assessed using stratified 5-fold cross-validation with fold-wise preprocessing to prevent leakage.
resultsAmong 2,080 encounters, 1,252 (60.2%) were discharged home and 828 (39.8%) had admission or worse. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was highest for the Comprehensive model 0.921 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.909–0.933), followed by the Clinical model 0.887 (95% CI, 0.873–0.902) and the Pre-test model 0.796 (95% CI, 0.776–0.816). At the Youden index-derived threshold, sensitivity/specificity were 0.850/0.855 (Comprehensive), 0.855/0.804 (Clinical), and 0.676/0.784 (Pre-test). Permutation and ablation analyses suggested that discrimination in the Pre-test model was supported by multiple triage-stage predictors, including age and acute neurologic or mental status indicators.
conclusionsED disposition can be predicted to some extent using triage-stage information alone, and performance improves when clinical-process indicators, laboratory tests, and diagnosis-related variables are added. These results clarify both the potential and the limitations of triage-only decision support for early ED workflow planning.
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.