Back

Machine learning models to detect opioid misuse in Emergency Department patients at triage.

Chhablani, C.; Shahid, U.; Parde, N.; Muslmani, S.; Hu, H.; Thorpe, D.; Afshar, M.; Karnik, N. S.; chhabra, n.

2025-07-18 emergency medicine
10.1101/2025.07.18.25331782 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveEmergency department (ED) encounters represent valuable opportunities to initiate evidence-based treatments for patients with opioid misuse, but few receive such care. Universal manual screening has been proposed to improve patient identification but is uncommon due to its time and resource-intensive nature. We sought to determine the feasibility of identifying patients with opioid misuse at the time of ED triage using machine learning (ML). MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1,123 ED encounters (September 2020 - March 2023) at a tertiary hospital. Encounters were enriched for opioid misuse, manually annotated, and chronologically split for training, validation, and testing. Candidate triage-time features included patient demographics, Emergency Severity Index, arrival time of day, chief complaint, comorbidities, and chronic medications. Model performance was evaluated using F1 score, area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), accuracy, recall, and AUROC. Post-hoc explainability analyses included SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and feature importance. ResultsAll models performed comparably to opioid-related diagnosis codes placed at any time during the encounter. Random Forest (F1=0.75 [95%CI 0.70-0.83], AUPRC=0.88 [0.81-0.93], accuracy=0.79 [0.70-0.83]) and Gradient Boosting (F1=0.77 [0.71-0.82], AUPRC=0.89 [0.85-0.93], accuracy=0.81 [0.720.84]) had among the highest F1 score and AUPRC but confidence intervals overlapped with other methods. Explainability analyses highlighted prior drug-use diagnosis codes, triage acuity, and age as top predictors. ConclusionML classifiers leveraging routinely collected triage data offer a feasible alternative to manual screening in flagging opioid misuse before physician evaluation, potentially enabling early harm-reduction interventions. Prospective multi-site validation, calibration, and bias assessments are warranted.

Published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.