Artificial Intelligence Triage of Urgent Versus Non‐Urgent CT Brain Findings to Support Expedited Emergency Department Disposition: A Retrospective Validation Study

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) model for identifying urgent computed tomography brain (CTB) findings in consecutive emergency department (ED) patients and estimate the proportion eligible for expedited disposition. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 3424 consecutive non-contrast CTB scans from adults presenting to a quaternary ED in 2024. The AI model (Harrison Enterprise CTB) classified each scan as "urgent" or "non-urgent." The reference standard was the index consultant radiologist report alone, classified independently by two emergency physicians with disagreements resolved by a blinded consultant radiologist tiebreak, all blinded to AI output. In a separate post hoc analysis, false negatives were re-adjudicated by a single unblinded assessor with access to the medical record and any subsequent imaging. RESULTS: Of 3424 scans, 253 (7.4%) had urgent findings on the reference standard. AI sensitivity was 85.4% (95% CI 80.0%-89.0%), specificity 69.1% (95% CI 67.0%-71.0%) and negative predictive value (NPV) 98.3% (95% CI 98.0%-99.0%). An estimated 64.0% of encounters were true negatives potentially eligible for expedited disposition. Of 37 false negatives, independent adjudication reclassified 24 as non-urgent, yielding a post hoc sensitivity of 94.3% and NPV of 99.4%. The 13 remaining cases were small or subtle findings. None of the 13 cases required urgent intervention during the index ED presentation. CONCLUSION: The AI model demonstrated high NPV for urgent CTB findings, with no false negative requiring urgent intervention during the index ED presentation. Preliminary results provide the safety rationale to proceed with a prospective trial aiming to incorporate this technology into ED workflows.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Emergency Medicine Australasia
Published
2026-09-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.70353
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Artificial Intelligence Triage of Urgent Versus Non‐Urgent CT Brain Findings to Support Expedited Emergency Department Disposition: A Retrospective Validation Study

Yu Xuan Kitzing, Radhika V. Seimon, Oliver Chen, Eliot DD Salmon et al.
Emergency Medicine Australasia
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Artificial Intelligence Triage of Urgent Versus Non‐Urgent CT Brain Findings to Support Expedited Emergency Department Disposition: A Retrospective Validation Study

Yu Xuan Kitzing, Radhika V. Seimon, Oliver Chen, Eliot DD Salmon, Hassan K. Ahmad, Brindha Shivalingam, Michael M. Dinh, Victoria Bond, Alvin Tan, Jethro Worsam
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) model for identifying urgent computed tomography brain (CTB) findings in consecutive emergency department (ED) patients and estimate the proportion eligible for expedited disposition. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 3424 consecutive non-contrast CTB scans from adults presenting to a quaternary ED in 2024. The AI model (Harrison Enterprise CTB) classified each scan as "urgent" or "non-urgent." The reference standard was the index consultant radiologist report alone, classified independently by two emergency physicians with disagreements resolved by a blinded consultant radiologist tiebreak, all blinded to AI output. In a separate post hoc analysis, false negatives were re-adjudicated by a single unblinded assessor with access to the medical record and any subsequent imaging. RESULTS: Of 3424 scans, 253 (7.4%) had urgent findings on the reference standard. AI sensitivity was 85.4% (95% CI 80.0%-89.0%), specificity 69.1% (95% CI 67.0%-71.0%) and negative predictive value (NPV) 98.3% (95% CI 98.0%-99.0%). An estimated 64.0% of encounters were true negatives potentially eligible for expedited disposition. Of 37 false negatives, independent adjudication reclassified 24 as non-urgent, yielding a post hoc sensitivity of 94.3% and NPV of 99.4%. The 13 remaining cases were small or subtle findings. None of the 13 cases required urgent intervention during the index ED presentation. CONCLUSION: The AI model demonstrated high NPV for urgent CTB findings, with no false negative requiring urgent intervention during the index ED presentation. Preliminary results provide the safety rationale to proceed with a prospective trial aiming to incorporate this technology into ED workflows.

Emergency Medicine AustralasiaVol. 38(5)
The University of Sydney (AU), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (AU), Chris O’Brien Lifehouse (AU), Sydney Local Health District (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
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.