Improving Triage Accuracy in Prehospital Emergency Telemedicine: Scoping Review of Machine Learning–Enhanced Approaches
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Prehospital telemedicine triage systems combined with machine learning (ML) methods have the potential to improve triage accuracy and safely redirect low-acuity patients from attending the emergency department. However, research in prehospital settings is limited but needed; emergency department overcrowding and adverse patient outcomes are increasingly common. OBJECTIVE: In this scoping review, we sought to characterize the existing methods for ML-enhanced telemedicine emergency triage. In order to support future research, we aimed to delineate what data sources, predictors, labels, ML models, and performance metrics were used, and in which telemedicine triage systems these methods were applied. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted, querying multiple databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore) through February 24, 2023, to identify potential ML-enhanced methods, and for those eligible, relevant study characteristics were extracted, including prehospital triage setting, types of predictors, ground truth labeling method, ML models used, and performance metrics. Inclusion criteria were restricted to the triage of emergency telemedicine services using ML methods on an undifferentiated (disease nonspecific) population. Only primary research studies in English were considered. Furthermore, only those studies using data collected remotely (as opposed to derived from physical assessments) were included. In order to limit bias, we exclusively included articles identified through our predefined search criteria and had 3 researchers (DR, JS, and KS) independently screen the resulting studies. We conducted a narrative synthesis of findings to establish a knowledge base in this domain and identify potential gaps to be addressed in forthcoming ML-enhanced methods. RESULTS: A total of 165 unique records were screened for eligibility and 15 were included in the review. Most studies applied ML methods during emergency medical dispatch (7/15, 47%) or used chatbot applications (5/15, 33%). Patient demographics and health status variables were the most common predictors, with a notable absence of social variables. Frequently used ML models included support vector machines and tree-based methods. ML-enhanced models typically outperformed conventional triage algorithms, and we found a wide range of methods used to establish ground truth labels. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review observed heterogeneity in dataset size, predictors, clinical setting (triage process), and reported performance metrics. Standard structured predictors, including age, sex, and comorbidities, across articles suggest the importance of these inputs; however, there was a notable absence of other potentially useful data, including medications, social variables, and health system exposure. Ground truth labeling practices should be reported in a standard fashion as the true model performance hinges on these labels. This review calls for future work to form a standardized framework, thereby supporting consistent reporting and performance comparisons across ML-enhanced prehospital triage systems.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,053 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».