Machine learning model identification and prediction of patients’ need for ICU admission: A systematic review - 20/10/23
Abstract |
Background |
The emergency department (ED) triage process serves as a crucial first step for patients seeking acute care, This initial assessment holds crucial implications for patient survival and prognosis. In this study, a systematic review of the existing literature was performed to investigate the performance of machine learning (ML) models in recognizing and predicting the need for intensive care among ED patients.
Methods |
Four prominent databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) were searched for relevant literature published up to April 28, 2023. The Prediction model study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was employed to evaluate the risk of bias and feasibility of prediction models.
Results |
In ten studies, the main algorithms used were Gradient Boostin, Logistic Regressio, Neural Network, Support Vector Machines, Random Forest. The performance of each model was as follows: Gradient Boosting had a sensitivity range of 0.3 to 0.96, specificity range of 0.6 to 0.99, accuracy range of 0.37 to 0.99, precision range of 0.3 to 0.96, and AUC value range of 0.68 to 0.93; Logistic Regression had a sensitivity range of 0.46 to 0.97, specificity range of 0.28 to 0.99, accuracy range of 0.66 to 0.97, precision range of 0.27 to 0.63, and AUC value range of 0.72 to 0.97; Neural Networks had a sensitivity range of 0.45 to 0.96, specificity range of 0.58 to 0.99, accuracy range of 0.36 to 0.97, precision range of 0.27 to 0.96, and AUC value range of 0.67 to 0.91; Support Vector Machines had a sensitivity range of 0.49 to 0.83, specificity range of 0.94 to 0.98, accuracy range of 0.33 to 0.97, precision range of 0.53 to 0.94, and AUC values were not reported; Random Forests had a sensitivity range of 0.75 to 0.91, specificity range of 0.77 to 0.94, accuracy range of 0.35 to 0.77, precision range of 0.36 to 0.94, and AUC value of 0.83.
Conclusion |
ML models have demonstrated good performance in identifying and predicting critically ill patients in ED triage. However, because of the limited number of studies on each model, further high-quality prospective research is needed to validate these findings.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Emergency department, Machine learning, Triage, Intensive care
Abbreviations : ED, ATS, CTAS, ESI, MTS
Plan
Vol 73
P. 166-170 - novembre 2023 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- The effect of sodium bicarbonate on OHCA patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT and propensity score studies
- Tingzhen Xu, Chenxia Wu, Qinkang Shen, Hua Xu, Haijun Huang
- High PCO2 on EMS arrival is due to low incidence and frequency of gasping: The need for head rotation and 4-finger hand placement
- Eric M. Rottenberg
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?