Eyal Klang1, Yiftach Barash1, Shelly Soffer2, Sigalit Bechler3, Yehezkel S Resheff3, Talia Granot3, Moni Shahar3, Maximiliano Klug1, Gennadiy Guralnik4, Eyal Zimlichman5, Eli Konen1. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Sheba Medical Center, Emek HaEla St 1, Ramat Gan, Israel. 2. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Sheba Medical Center, Emek HaEla St 1, Ramat Gan, Israel. soffer.shelly@gmail.com. 3. Intuit, HaHarash St.4, Building C 2nd floor, 4524075, Hod HaSharon, Israel. 4. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Einstein St 68, Tel Aviv, Israel. 5. The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Hospital Management, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to develop a novel prediction model to identify patients in need of a non-contrast head CT exam during emergency department (ED) triage. METHODS: We collected data of all adult ED visits in our institution for five consecutive years (1/2013-12/2017). Retrieved variables included the following: demographics, mode of arrival to the ED, comorbidities, home medications, structured and unstructured chief complaints, vital signs, pain scale score, emergency severity index, ED wing assignment, documentation of previous ED visits, hospitalizations and CTs, and current visit non-contrast head CT usage. A machine learning gradient boosting model was trained on data from the years 2013-2016 and tested on data from 2017. Area under the curve (AUC) was used as metrics. Single-variable AUCs were also determined. Youden's index evaluated optimal sensitivity and specificity of the models. RESULTS: The final cohort included 595,561 ED visits. Non-contrast head CT usage rate was 11.8%. Each visit was coded into an input vector of 171 variables. Single-variable analysis showed that chief complaint had the best single predictive analysis (AUC = 0.87). The best model showed an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.931-0.936) for predicting non-contrast head CT usage at triage level. The model had a sensitivity of 88.1% and specificity of 85.7% for non-contrast head CT utilization. CONCLUSION: The developed model can identify patients that need to undergo head CT exam already in the ED triage level and by that allow faster diagnosis and treatment.
PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to develop a novel prediction model to identify patients in need of a non-contrast head CT exam during emergency department (ED) triage. METHODS: We collected data of all adult ED visits in our institution for five consecutive years (1/2013-12/2017). Retrieved variables included the following: demographics, mode of arrival to the ED, comorbidities, home medications, structured and unstructured chief complaints, vital signs, pain scale score, emergency severity index, ED wing assignment, documentation of previous ED visits, hospitalizations and CTs, and current visit non-contrast head CT usage. A machine learning gradient boosting model was trained on data from the years 2013-2016 and tested on data from 2017. Area under the curve (AUC) was used as metrics. Single-variable AUCs were also determined. Youden's index evaluated optimal sensitivity and specificity of the models. RESULTS: The final cohort included 595,561 ED visits. Non-contrast head CT usage rate was 11.8%. Each visit was coded into an input vector of 171 variables. Single-variable analysis showed that chief complaint had the best single predictive analysis (AUC = 0.87). The best model showed an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.931-0.936) for predicting non-contrast head CT usage at triage level. The model had a sensitivity of 88.1% and specificity of 85.7% for non-contrast head CT utilization. CONCLUSION: The developed model can identify patients that need to undergo head CT exam already in the ED triage level and by that allow faster diagnosis and treatment.
Authors: Marion Smits; Diederik W J Dippel; Gijs G de Haan; Heleen M Dekker; Pieter E Vos; Digna R Kool; Paul J Nederkoorn; Paul A M Hofman; Albert Twijnstra; Hervé L J Tanghe; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-09-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jarone Lee; Jonathan Kirschner; Sapna Pawa; Dan E Wiener; David H Newman; Kaushal Shah Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Jonathan B Kruskal; Seth Berkowitz; J Raymond Geis; Woojin Kim; Paul Nagy; Keith Dreyer Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Ali S Raja; Ivan K Ip; Aaron D Sodickson; Ron M Walls; Steven E Seltzer; Joshua M Kosowsky; Ramin Khorasani Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jesse M Pines; Sanjay Iyer; Maureen Disbot; Judd E Hollander; Frances S Shofer; Elizabeth M Datner Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Brian J Douthit; Rachel L Walden; Kenrick Cato; Cynthia P Coviak; Christopher Cruz; Fabio D'Agostino; Thompson Forbes; Grace Gao; Theresa A Kapetanovic; Mikyoung A Lee; Lisiane Pruinelli; Mary A Schultz; Ann Wieben; Alvin D Jeffery Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Eyal Klang; Benjamin R Kummer; Neha S Dangayach; Amy Zhong; M Arash Kia; Prem Timsina; Ian Cossentino; Anthony B Costa; Matthew A Levin; Eric K Oermann Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 4.379