Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Emergency Departments to Improve Wait Times: Protocol for an Integrative Living Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long wait times in the emergency department (ED) are a major issue for health care systems all over the world. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) is a novel strategy to reduce ED wait times when compared to the interventions included in previous research endeavors. To date, comprehensive systematic reviews that include studies involving AI applications in the context of EDs have covered a wide range of AI implementation issues. However, the lack of an iterative update strategy limits the use of these reviews. Since the subject of AI development is cutting edge and is continuously changing, reviews in this area must be frequently updated to remain relevant. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide a summary of the evidence that is currently available regarding how AI can affect ED wait times; discuss the applications of AI in improving wait times; and periodically assess the depth, breadth, and quality of the evidence supporting the application of AI in reducing ED wait times. METHODS: We plan to conduct a living systematic review (LSR). Our strategy involves conducting continuous monitoring of evidence, with biannual search updates and annual review updates. Upon completing the initial round of the review, we will refine the search strategy and establish clear schedules for updating the LSR. An interpretive synthesis using Whittemore and Knafl's framework will be performed to compile and summarize the findings. The review will be carried out using an integrated knowledge translation strategy, and knowledge users will be involved at all stages of the review to guarantee applicability, usability, and clarity of purpose. RESULTS: The literature search was completed by September 22, 2023, and identified 17,569 articles. The title and abstract screening were completed by December 9, 2023. In total, 70 papers were eligible. The full-text screening is in progress. CONCLUSIONS: The review will summarize AI applications that improve ED wait time. The LSR enables researchers to maintain high methodological rigor while enhancing the timeliness, applicability, and value of the review. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52612.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.064 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".