Key result
Two-step machine learning algorithm safely rules out pulmonary embolism with a ~1.4% failure rate.
Why the study?
Safely ruling out pulmonary embolism in emergency department patients without additional testing could reduce imaging use and ED crowding, and machine learning may improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency.
Does a machine learning algorithm safely rule out pulmonary embolism without additional testing in emergency department patients with suspected PE?
Observational (n=5,038)
Yes
Does a machine learning algorithm safely rule out pulmonary embolism without additional testing in emergency department patients with suspected PE?
A two-step machine learning algorithm can safely rule out pulmonary embolism in emergency department patients with a failure rate below 2% and imaging rates comparable to the best existing clinical decision rules.
ML models may aid PE rule-out in ED without imaging; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Background Pulmonary embolism (PE) is frequently suspected in emergency departments (EDs). Safely ruling out PE without additional testing could reduce imaging use and ED crowding. Machine learning (ML) may improve accuracy and efficiency. Objectives To evaluate ML models for ruling out PE without additional testing in ED patients with suspected PE, while maintaining a failure rate <2%. Methods We retrospectively analysed pooled data from four prospective European studies of ED patients with suspected PE (2000-2013). A total of 5038 patients were randomly split into training (n=2400) and validation (n=2638) datasets. ML models classified patients into low, intermediate, and high pre-test probability groups. In intermediate-risk patients, post-test probability was refined using either a fixed D-dimer threshold or a second ML model. The primary outcome was the failure rate assessed in the validation cohort and defined as the proportion of missed PE diagnoses. Results The best-performing algorithm combined weighted ridge regression (pre-test) with weighted random forest (post-test), achieving a failure rate of 1.44% (95% CI 1.04-1.99) and a Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.470 (95%CI 0.440-0.500). This model ruled out PE without any testing in 9.7% of patients, with an estimated imaging proportion of 54.1%, comparable to 4PEPS (52.9%) and lower than PERC (66.8%). Conclusion A two-step ML algorithm performed comparably to the best existing clinical decision rules, with a failure rate whose confidence interval remained below the prespecified 2% criterion and an estimated imaging proportion similar to 4PEPS. Prospective external validation is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fehlmann et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Suspected pulmonary embolism (n=5,038). Two-step machine learning algorithm vs. 4PEPS and PERC clinical decision rules was evaluated on Failure rate (proportion of missed PE diagnoses) in the validation cohort (95% CI 1.04-1.99). A two-step machine learning algorithm safely ruled out pulmonary embolism with a failure rate of 1.44% (95% CI 1.04-1.99), remaining below the prespecified 2% safety threshold.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: