Artificial intelligence–based clinical decision support in the emergency department: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support (CDS) has the potential to augment high-stakes clinical decisions in the emergency department (ED). However, its current usage and translation to implementation remains poorly understood. We asked: (1) What is the current landscape of AI-CDS for individual patient care in the ED? and (2) What phases of development have AI-CDS tools achieved? METHODS: We performed a scoping review of AI for prognostic, diagnostic, and treatment decisions regarding individual ED patient care. We searched five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Web of Science) and gray literature sources from January 1, 2010, to December 11, 2023. We adhered to guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. We published our protocol on Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/FDZ3Y). RESULTS: Of 5168 unique records identified, we selected 605 studies for inclusion. The majority (369, 61%) were published in 2021-2023. The studies ranged over a variety of clinical applications, patient populations, and AI model types. Prognostic outcomes were most commonly assessed (270, 44.6%), followed by diagnostic (193, 31.9%) and disposition (115, 19%). Most studies remained in the earliest phase of preclinical development (572, 94.5%) with few advancing to later phases (33, 5.5%). CONCLUSIONS: By thoroughly mapping the landscape of AI-CDS in the ED, we demonstrate a rapidly increasing volume of studies covering a breadth of clinical applications, yet few have achieved advanced phases of testing or implementation. A more granular understanding of the barriers and facilitators to implementing AI-CDS in the ED is needed.
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 | 0.034 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".