IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0226518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A validation of machine learning-based risk scores in the prehospital setting

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas Spangler
  • Thomas Hermansson
  • David Smekal
  • Hans Blomberg

Abstract

Background: The triage of patients in prehospital care is a difficult task, and improved risk assessment tools are needed both at the dispatch center and on the ambulance to differentiate between low- and high-risk patients. This study validates a machine learning-based approach to generating risk scores based on hospital outcomes using routinely collected prehospital data. Methods: Dispatch, ambulance, and hospital data were collected in one Swedish region from 2016–2017. Dispatch center and ambulance records were used to develop gradient boosting models predicting hospital admission, critical care (defined as admission to an intensive care unit or in-hospital mortality), and two-day mortality. Composite risk scores were generated based on the models and compared to National Early Warning Scores (NEWS) and actual dispatched priorities in a prospectively gathered dataset from 2018. Results: A total of 38203 patients were included from 2016–2018. Concordance indexes (or areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve) for dispatched priorities ranged from 0.51–0.66, while those for NEWS ranged from 0.66–0.85. Concordance ranged from 0.70–0.79 for risk scores based only on dispatch data, and 0.79–0.89 for risk scores including ambulance data. Dispatch data-based risk scores consistently outperformed dispatched priorities in predicting hospital outcomes, while models including ambulance data also consistently outperformed NEWS. Model performance in the prospective test dataset was similar to that found using cross-validation, and calibration was comparable to that of NEWS. Conclusions: Machine learning-based risk scores outperformed a widely-used rule-based triage algorithm and human prioritization decisions in predicting hospital outcomes. Performance was robust in a prospectively gathered dataset, and scores demonstrated adequate calibration. Future research should explore the robustness of these methods when applied to other settings, establish appropriate outcome measures for use in determining the need for prehospital care, and investigate the clinical impact of interventions based on these methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas Spangler & Thomas Hermansson & David Smekal & Hans Blomberg, 2019. "A validation of machine learning-based risk scores in the prehospital setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226518
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226518
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226518
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226518&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0226518?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sumanth Swaminathan & Klajdi Qirko & Ted Smith & Ethan Corcoran & Nicholas G Wysham & Gaurav Bazaz & George Kappel & Anthony N Gerber, 2017. "A machine learning approach to triaging patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, November.
    2. Woo Suk Hong & Adrian Daniel Haimovich & R Andrew Taylor, 2018. "Predicting hospital admission at emergency department triage using machine learning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emilien Arnaud & Mahmoud Elbattah & Christine Ammirati & Gilles Dequen & Daniel Aiham Ghazali, 2022. "Use of Artificial Intelligence to Manage Patient Flow in Emergency Department during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective, Single-Center Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Adam Ceney & Stephanie Tolond & Andrzej Glowinski & Ben Marks & Simon Swift & Tom Palser, 2021. "Accuracy of online symptom checkers and the potential impact on service utilisation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-16, July.
    3. Julian Schiele & Thomas Koperna & Jens O. Brunner, 2021. "Predicting intensive care unit bed occupancy for integrated operating room scheduling via neural networks," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(1), pages 65-88, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226518. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.