利用机器学习和自然语言处理提高急诊科分诊效率:系统综述。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE BMC Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1186/s12873-024-01135-2
Bruno Matos Porto
{"title":"利用机器学习和自然语言处理提高急诊科分诊效率:系统综述。","authors":"Bruno Matos Porto","doi":"10.1186/s12873-024-01135-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In Emergency Departments (EDs), triage is crucial for determining patient severity and prioritizing care, typically using the Manchester Triage Scale (MTS). Traditional triage systems, reliant on human judgment, are prone to under-triage and over-triage, resulting in variability, bias, and incorrect patient classification. Studies suggest that Machine Learning (ML) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) could enhance triage accuracy and consistency. This review analyzes studies on ML and/or NLP algorithms for ED patient triage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a systematic review across five databases: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library, from their inception of each database to October 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Only articles employing at least one ML and/or NLP method for patient triage classification were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty studies covering 57 ML algorithms were included. Logistic Regression (LR) was the most used model, while eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), decision tree-based algorithms with Gradient Boosting (GB), and Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) showed superior performance. Frequent predictive variables included demographics and vital signs, with oxygen saturation, chief complaints, systolic blood pressure, age, and mode of arrival being the most retained. The ML algorithms showed significant bias risk due to critical bias assessment in classification models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NLP methods improved ML algorithms' classification capability using triage nursing and medical notes and structured clinical data compared to algorithms using only structured data. Feature engineering (FE) and class imbalance correction methods enhanced ML workflows' performance, but FE and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) were underexplored in this field. Registration and funding. This systematic review has been registered (registration number: CRD42024604529) in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and can be accessed online at the following URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=604529 . Funding for this work was provided by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil.</p>","PeriodicalId":9002,"journal":{"name":"BMC Emergency Medicine","volume":"24 1","pages":"219"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11575054/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving triage performance in emergency departments using machine learning and natural language processing: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Bruno Matos Porto\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12873-024-01135-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In Emergency Departments (EDs), triage is crucial for determining patient severity and prioritizing care, typically using the Manchester Triage Scale (MTS). Traditional triage systems, reliant on human judgment, are prone to under-triage and over-triage, resulting in variability, bias, and incorrect patient classification. Studies suggest that Machine Learning (ML) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) could enhance triage accuracy and consistency. This review analyzes studies on ML and/or NLP algorithms for ED patient triage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a systematic review across five databases: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library, from their inception of each database to October 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Only articles employing at least one ML and/or NLP method for patient triage classification were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty studies covering 57 ML algorithms were included. Logistic Regression (LR) was the most used model, while eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), decision tree-based algorithms with Gradient Boosting (GB), and Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) showed superior performance. Frequent predictive variables included demographics and vital signs, with oxygen saturation, chief complaints, systolic blood pressure, age, and mode of arrival being the most retained. The ML algorithms showed significant bias risk due to critical bias assessment in classification models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NLP methods improved ML algorithms' classification capability using triage nursing and medical notes and structured clinical data compared to algorithms using only structured data. Feature engineering (FE) and class imbalance correction methods enhanced ML workflows' performance, but FE and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) were underexplored in this field. Registration and funding. This systematic review has been registered (registration number: CRD42024604529) in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and can be accessed online at the following URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=604529 . Funding for this work was provided by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9002,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11575054/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-01135-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-01135-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在急诊科(ED)中,分诊对于确定病人严重程度和护理优先次序至关重要,通常使用曼彻斯特分诊量表(MTS)。传统的分诊系统依赖于人的判断,容易出现分诊不足和分诊过度的情况,从而导致变异、偏差和错误的病人分类。研究表明,机器学习(ML)和自然语言处理(NLP)可以提高分诊的准确性和一致性。本综述分析了有关 ED 患者分流的 ML 和/或 NLP 算法的研究:根据系统性综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,我们在五个数据库中进行了系统性综述:科学网、PubMed、Scopus、IEEE Xplore 和 ACM 数字图书馆。偏倚风险使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)进行评估。只有采用至少一种 ML 和/或 NLP 方法进行患者分流分类的文章才被纳入:结果:共纳入 60 项研究,涵盖 57 种 ML 算法。逻辑回归(LR)是最常用的模型,而极梯度提升(XGBoost)、基于决策树的梯度提升算法(GB)和深度神经网络(DNN)则表现出更优越的性能。常见的预测变量包括人口统计学和生命体征,其中血氧饱和度、主诉、收缩压、年龄和到达方式保留率最高。由于分类模型中的关键偏差评估,ML 算法显示出明显的偏差风险:结论:与仅使用结构化数据的算法相比,使用分诊护理和医疗记录以及结构化临床数据的 NLP 方法提高了 ML 算法的分类能力。特征工程(FE)和类不平衡校正方法提高了 ML 工作流的性能,但 FE 和可扩展人工智能(XAI)在这一领域的探索还不够。注册与经费。本系统综述已在国际系统综述前瞻性注册中心(PROSPERO)注册(注册号:CRD42024604529),可通过以下网址在线访问:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=604529 。本研究由巴西国家科技发展委员会(CNPq)资助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Improving triage performance in emergency departments using machine learning and natural language processing: a systematic review.

Background: In Emergency Departments (EDs), triage is crucial for determining patient severity and prioritizing care, typically using the Manchester Triage Scale (MTS). Traditional triage systems, reliant on human judgment, are prone to under-triage and over-triage, resulting in variability, bias, and incorrect patient classification. Studies suggest that Machine Learning (ML) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) could enhance triage accuracy and consistency. This review analyzes studies on ML and/or NLP algorithms for ED patient triage.

Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a systematic review across five databases: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library, from their inception of each database to October 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Only articles employing at least one ML and/or NLP method for patient triage classification were included.

Results: Sixty studies covering 57 ML algorithms were included. Logistic Regression (LR) was the most used model, while eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), decision tree-based algorithms with Gradient Boosting (GB), and Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) showed superior performance. Frequent predictive variables included demographics and vital signs, with oxygen saturation, chief complaints, systolic blood pressure, age, and mode of arrival being the most retained. The ML algorithms showed significant bias risk due to critical bias assessment in classification models.

Conclusion: NLP methods improved ML algorithms' classification capability using triage nursing and medical notes and structured clinical data compared to algorithms using only structured data. Feature engineering (FE) and class imbalance correction methods enhanced ML workflows' performance, but FE and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) were underexplored in this field. Registration and funding. This systematic review has been registered (registration number: CRD42024604529) in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and can be accessed online at the following URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=604529 . Funding for this work was provided by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Emergency Medicine
BMC Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Emergency Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all urgent and emergency aspects of medicine, in both practice and basic research. In addition, the journal covers aspects of disaster medicine and medicine in special locations, such as conflict areas and military medicine, together with articles concerning healthcare services in the emergency departments.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the effect of a scenario-based pre-hospital trauma management training course on the knowledge and clinical skills of emergency medical service students. In-hospital stay of anemic patients in the ED with/without transfusion: a single-center propensity-matched study. Assessing beliefs and preparedness for disasters among high school female students in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Performance of machine learning models in predicting difficult laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a single-centre retrospective study comparing with conventional regression method. Effective strategies for reducing patient length of stay in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1