MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412940425 · doi:10.2196/73960

An Artificial Intelligence–Based Framework for Predicting Emergency Department Overcrowding: Development and Evaluation Study

2025· article· en· W4412940425 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Orhun Vural, Bunyamin Ozaydin, Khalid Y. Aram, James Booth, Brittany F. Lindsey, Abdulaziz Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsOvercrowdingPreprintEmergency departmentComputer scienceMedical emergencyArtificial intelligenceMedicineData scienceWorld Wide WebNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207