Back

Asyndromic Surveillance of New York City Emergency Department Diagnoses with the Tree-Temporal Scan Statistic

Greene, S. K.; Levin-Rector, A.; Kulldorff, M.; Lall, R.

2025-11-13 epidemiology
10.1101/2025.11.11.25339953 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesIllness trends are typically monitored by reportable disease and syndromic surveillance systems, but unanticipated health issues might not be captured. Using diagnosis codes, the New York City Health Department developed a data mining method to detect unusual increases in emergency department (ED) visits for any reason. MethodsWe applied the tree-temporal scan statistic in TreeScan software to ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes for ED visits. We searched for unusual citywide increases in ED visits or hospital admissions, over any recent time period, and at any part of and level on the ICD-10-CM tree. We conducted proof-of-concept analyses for March 2020 when COVID-19 emerged, then investigated signals detected in daily, automated analyses during April-August 2025. ResultsIf TreeScan analyses had been in place, then increasing hospital admissions for viral pneumonia (J12) would have triggered a signal on March 13, 2020, two days before widespread COVID-19 community transmission was announced. An extreme heat event in June 2025 triggered a signal for admissions for acute kidney failure (N17), prompting outreach to dialysis networks. A sustained signal for hand, foot, and mouth disease (B08.4) prompted outreach to child care programs. Other signals supported situational awareness, including a seasonal increase for swimmers ear (H60.33) and burns (T30.0) related to consumer fireworks. Practice ImplicationsTreeScan quickly detected credible increases in various diagnoses without pre-specification, from minor to severe, rare to common, acute to sustained, and foreseen to unforeseen. TreeScan can strengthen surveillance for health issues related to new pathogens, non-notifiable conditions, environmental exposures, and mass gatherings.

Published in Journal of Public Health Research · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 10 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.