Machine learning for risk stratification in the emergency department (MARS-ED): a randomized controlled trial

Emergency department (ED) crowding necessitates rapid, accurate risk stratification to optimize care and resource allocation. Traditional clinical prediction tools like NEWS, APACHE II, and SOFA score have limited generalizability or rely on extensive inputs, including vitals. We developed RISK<sup>INDEX</sup>, a machine-learning tool predicting 31-day mortality using routine laboratory values, age, and sex. To evaluate the clinical impact of a machine learning-based risk score in routine care, we conducted an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial (MARS-ED) at the Maastricht University Medical Center+ ED. Adult patients ( ≥ 18 years) assessed by an internal medicine specialist and with ≥4 laboratory tests were eligible. Patients were randomized 1:1 using computer-generated permuted blocks to standard care (n = 659) or standard care plus access to the RISK<sup>INDEX</sup> (n = 644). No blinding was possible because physicians needed to view the RISK<sup>INDEX</sup>. The primary outcomes for this study were the prognostic accuracy for 31-day mortality and clinical impact of the RISK<sup>INDEX</sup>. In total, 1303 participants were analyzed. RISK<sup>INDEX</sup>'s prognostic accuracy matched or outperformed clinical intuition (AUROC 0.84 vs. 0.73-0.76) and was statistically higher than NEWS, APACHE II, and SOFA prediction tools (AUROC 0.65-0.75). RISK<sup>INDEX</sup> predictions aligned with clinicians' expectations in only about half of cases, with highest discordance among less experienced physicians. Despite its prognostic accuracy, the RISK<sup>INDEX</sup> did not alter treatment plans (1/644 changes; 0.16%) or clinical outcomes, and clinicians perceived low added value. No adverse events related to the intervention occurred, and recruitment was completed as planned. These findings show that prognostic accuracy alone is insufficient to achieve clinical impact in the ED and that user-centered, actionable model design is needed to ensure relevance, trust, and responsiveness. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05497830.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Communications
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-66947-7
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Emergency and Acute Care Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.51
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Machine learning for risk stratification in the emergency department (MARS-ED): a randomized controlled trial

Paul M. E. L. van Dam, William P. T. M. van Doorn, Patricia Maria Stassen, Otto Bekers et al.
2 citations
Nature Communications
Emergency and Acute Care Studies
4.51
article

Machine learning for risk stratification in the emergency department (MARS-ED): a randomized controlled trial

Paul M. E. L. van Dam, William P. T. M. van Doorn, Patricia Maria Stassen, Otto Bekers, Lars Lambriks, Steven J.R. Meex, Jochen Cals, Lotte Sevenich
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Emergency department (ED) crowding necessitates rapid, accurate risk stratification to optimize care and resource allocation. Traditional clinical prediction tools like NEWS, APACHE II, and SOFA score have limited generalizability or rely on extensive inputs, including vitals. We developed RISK<sup>INDEX</sup>, a machine-learning tool predicting 31-day mortality using routine laboratory values, age, and sex. To evaluate the clinical impact of a machine learning-based risk score in routine care, we conducted an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial (MARS-ED) at the Maastricht University Medical Center+ ED. Adult patients ( ≥ 18 years) assessed by an internal medicine specialist and with ≥4 laboratory tests were eligible. Patients were randomized 1:1 using computer-generated permuted blocks to standard care (n = 659) or standard care plus access to the RISK<sup>INDEX</sup> (n = 644). No blinding was possible because physicians needed to view the RISK<sup>INDEX</sup>. The primary outcomes for this study were the prognostic accuracy for 31-day mortality and clinical impact of the RISK<sup>INDEX</sup>. In total, 1303 participants were analyzed. RISK<sup>INDEX</sup>'s prognostic accuracy matched or outperformed clinical intuition (AUROC 0.84 vs. 0.73-0.76) and was statistically higher than NEWS, APACHE II, and SOFA prediction tools (AUROC 0.65-0.75). RISK<sup>INDEX</sup> predictions aligned with clinicians' expectations in only about half of cases, with highest discordance among less experienced physicians. Despite its prognostic accuracy, the RISK<sup>INDEX</sup> did not alter treatment plans (1/644 changes; 0.16%) or clinical outcomes, and clinicians perceived low added value. No adverse events related to the intervention occurred, and recruitment was completed as planned. These findings show that prognostic accuracy alone is insufficient to achieve clinical impact in the ED and that user-centered, actionable model design is needed to ensure relevance, trust, and responsiveness. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05497830.

Nature CommunicationsVol. 17(1)
Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL), Maastricht University (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Emergency and Acute Care Studies
4.51
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.