MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4416663044 · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2025.103316

Using artificial intelligence to predict patient wait times in the emergency department: A scoping review

2025· review· en· W4416663044 sur OpenAlexaff
Troy Gloyn, Christina Seo, Alexandra Godinho, Rahul Rahul, Siona Phadke, Hilary Fotheringham, Pete Wegier

Notice bibliographique

RevueArtificial Intelligence in Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Établissements canadiensHumber River Regional Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRandom forestFeature selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Feature (linguistics)Emergency departmentArtificial neural networkDecision support system

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The purpose of this review was to comprehensively explore the landscape of recently published literature on the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in predicting individualized patient waiting times in an emergency department (ED) and identify pertinent considerations for practitioners and hospital decision-makers. ED overcrowding is being experienced by hospitals around the globe and has worsened in the post COVID-19 era. The negative patient and staff experiences and poor clinical outcomes from overcrowding are evident and necessitate solutions to address this ongoing problem. Hospitals providing ED waiting time estimates to patients and staff are becoming popular; however, the more common methods, such as using rolling averages, suffer from an inability to capture the nuanced relationships within an ED. Recent applications of AI and machine learning (ML) in healthcare raises the possibility of applying these techniques to individualized waiting time predictions in the ED; although, literature on the topic is sparse. A systematized search was conducted on November 10th, 2025, using the electronic databases CINAHL, EMBASE (OVID), Medline (OVID), PsychINFO, Web of Science, and PubMed. Articles were considered for review if written in English, peer-reviewed, published after 2014, and used AI techniques. Descriptive analysis was performed on the final extracted data to facilitate the identification of common themes across studies. Themes were inferred from the proportional usage among studies, of different data preparation, feature selection, and modeling strategies. The search identified 8613 citations that, after a rigorous screening process and critical appraisal, were narrowed down to 15 studies for final review. Most included studies were observational, using historical medical record data to compare modeling techniques or demonstrate a proof of concept. Studies commonly used one or more of ED queue-based, staff/resource-based, patient-based, and time-based feature categories. Incorporated AI methods included Random Forest, Linear Regression, and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) techniques, among several others. All forms of AI and ML outperformed traditional rolling average estimates used by hospitals. This review identified applications of AI in predicting individualized patient waiting times in the ED that outperform current waiting time estimate strategies. The use of nonlinear techniques, such as the Random Forest method, or incorporating queue-based feature categories, appeared to provide better performance in predictive estimates. Depending on the end user and modality in which the wait time estimate is conveyed, the importance of model selection is highlighted as a consideration to be made if overestimates or underestimates are preferred. • AI modeling techniques outperform traditional rolling average methods for predicting patient ED waiting times • Random forests and linear regression are the most common techniques used to predict patient ED wait times • The reviewed studies consistently identified queue-based features as significant predictors of wait times, or, as a set of features that can enrich the pool of predictors to improve the accuracy of predictions. • Literature on AI modeling for ED patient wait times is scarce and lacks feasibility implementation studies • Modeling over- or under- performance may be preferred depending on the modality and end-user in which the wait time estimate is used.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,922
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,184
Tête enseignante GPT0,462
Écart entre enseignants0,278 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArtificial Intelligence in MedicineMême sujetEmergency and Acute Care StudiesTravaux en français237 207