Artificial intelligence in emergency medicine: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing investment in and adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, the applications of AI in an emergency setting remain unclear. This scoping review seeks to identify available literature regarding the applications of AI in emergency medicine. METHODS: The scoping review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for scoping reviews using Medline-OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL, and IEEE, with a double screening and extraction process. The search included articles published until February 28, 2020. Articles were excluded if they did not self-classify as studying an AI intervention, were not relevant to the emergency department (ED), or did not report outcomes or evaluation. RESULTS: Of the 1483 original database citations, 395 were eligible for full-text evaluation. Of these articles, a total of 150 were included in the scoping review. The majority of included studies were retrospective in nature (n = 124, 82.7%), with only 3 (2.0%) prospective controlled trials. We found 37 (24.7%) interventions aimed at improving diagnosis within the ED. Among the 150 studies, 19 (12.7%) focused on diagnostic imaging within the ED. A total of 16 (10.7%) studies were conducted in the out-of-hospital environment (eg, emergency medical services, paramedics) with the remainder occurring either in the ED or the trauma bay. Of the 24 (16%) studies that had human comparators, there were 12 (8%) studies in which AI interventions outperformed clinicians in at least 1 measured outcome. CONCLUSION: AI-related research is rapidly increasing in emergency medicine. There are several promising AI interventions that can improve emergency care, particularly for acute radiographic imaging and prediction-based diagnoses. Higher quality evidence is needed to further assess both short- and long-term clinical outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".