MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaff
Troy Gloyn, Christina Seo, Alexandra Godinho, Rahul Rahul, Siona Phadke, Hilary Fotheringham, Pete Wegier

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence in Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsHumber River Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestFeature selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Feature (linguistics)Emergency departmentArtificial neural networkDecision support system

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0190.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Intelligence in MedicineSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207