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 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.8%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.5%
3
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.4%
5
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.6%
6
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
8
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
9
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.8%
10
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.6%
11
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
12
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
13
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
14
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
16
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
18
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
19
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
20
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
21
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
22
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
23
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
24
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
25
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
27
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
29
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.5%
30
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%