Machine Learning Versus Usual Care for Diagnostic and Prognostic Prediction in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE

Having shown promise in other medical fields, we sought to determine whether machine learning (ML) models perform better than usual care in diagnostic and prognostic prediction for emergency department (ED) patients.

METHODS

In this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Central, and CINAHL from inception to October 17, 2019. We included studies comparing diagnostic and prognostic prediction of ED patients by ML models to usual care methods (triage-based scores, clinical prediction tools, clinician judgment) using predictor variables readily available to ED clinicians. We extracted commonly reported performance metrics of model discrimination and classification. We used the PROBAST tool for risk of bias assessment (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020158129).

RESULTS

The search yielded 1,656 unique records, of which 23 studies involving 16,274,647 patients were included. In all seven diagnostic studies, ML models outperformed usual care in all performance metrics. In six studies assessing in-hospital mortality, the best-performing ML models had better discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] =0.74-0.94) than any clinical decision tool (AUROC =0.68-0.81). In four studies assessing hospitalization, ML models had better discrimination (AUROC =0.80-0.83) than triage-based scores (AUROC =0.68-0.82). Clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Most studies had high risk of bias due to lack of external validation, low event rates, and insufficient reporting of calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests that ML may have better prediction performance than usual care for ED patients with a variety of clinical presentations and outcomes. However, prediction model reporting guidelines should be followed to provide clinically applicable data. Interventional trials are needed to assess the impact of ML models on patient-centered outcomes.