An Artificial Intelligence–Based Framework for Predicting Emergency Department Overcrowding: Development and Evaluation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) overcrowding remains a critical challenge, leading to delays in patient care and increased operational strain. Current hospital management strategies often rely on reactive decision-making, addressing congestion only after it occurs. However, effective patient flow management requires early identification of overcrowding risks to allow timely interventions. Machine learning (ML)-based predictive modeling offers a solution by forecasting key patient flow measures, such as waiting count, enabling proactive resource allocation and improved hospital efficiency. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop ML models that predict ED waiting room occupancy (waiting count) at 2 temporal resolutions. The first approach is the hourly prediction model, which estimates the waiting count exactly 6 hours ahead at each prediction time (eg, a 1 PM prediction forecasts 7 PM). The second approach is the daily prediction model, which forecasts the average waiting count for the next 24-hour period (eg, a 5 PM prediction estimates the following day's average). These predictive tools support resource allocation and help mitigate overcrowding by enabling proactive interventions before congestion occurs. METHODS: Data from a partner hospital's ED in the southeastern United States were used, integrating internal and external sources. Eleven different ML algorithms, ranging from traditional approaches to deep learning architectures, were systematically trained and evaluated on both hourly and daily predictions to determine the models that achieved the lowest prediction error. Experiments optimized feature combinations, and the best models were tested under high patient volume and across different hours to assess temporal accuracy. RESULTS: The best hourly prediction performance was achieved by time series vision transformer plus (TSiTPlus) with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 4.19 and a mean squared error (MSE) of 29.36. The overall hourly waiting count had a mean of 18.11 and a SD (σ) of 9.77. Prediction accuracy varied by time of day, with the lowest MAE at 11 PM (2.45) and the highest at 8 PM (5.45). Extreme case analysis at (mean + 1σ), (mean + 2σ), and (mean + 3σ) resulted in MAEs of 6.16, 10.16, and 15.59, respectively. For daily predictions, an explainable convolutional neural network plus (XCMPlus) achieved the best results with an MAE of 2.00 and a MSE of 6.64. The daily waiting count had a mean of 18.11 and a SD of 4.51. Both models outperformed traditional forecasting approaches across multiple evaluation metrics. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed prediction models effectively forecast ED waiting count at both hourly and daily intervals. The results demonstrate the value of integrating diverse data sources and applying advanced modeling techniques to support proactive resource allocation decisions. The implementation of these forecasting tools within hospital management systems has the potential to improve patient flow and reduce overcrowding in emergency care settings. The code is available in our GitHub repository.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».