Coded Chief Complaints—Automated Analysis of Free‐text Complaints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe a new chief-complaint categorization schema, the development of a computer text-parsing algorithm to automatically classify free-text chief complaints into this schema, and use of these coded chief complaints to describe the case mix of a community emergency department (ED). METHODS: Coded Chief Complaints for Emergency Department Systems (CCC-EDS) is a new and untested schema of 228 chief complaints, grouped within dimensions of type and system. A computerized text-parsing algorithm for automatically reading and classifying free-text chief complaints into 1 of these 228 coded chief complaints was developed by using a consecutive derivation sample of 46,602 patients who presented to a community teaching-hospital ED in 2004. Descriptive statistics included frequency of patients presenting with the 228 coded chief complaints; percentage of free-text complaints not categorizable by the CCC-EDS; and admission rate, age, and gender differences by chief complaint. RESULTS: In the derivation sample, the text-parsing algorithm classified 87.5% of 45,329 ED visits with non-null free-text chief complaints into 1 of 194 coded chief complaints. The text-parsing algorithm successfully classified 87.3% of the free-text chief complaints in a validation sample. The five most common coded chief complaints were Abdominal Pain (3,734 visits), Fever (2,234), Chest Pain (2,183), Breathing Difficulty (2,030), and Cuts-Lacerations (2,028). CONCLUSIONS: The CCC-EDS is a new comprehensive, granular, and useful classification schema for categorizing chief complaints in an ED. A CCC-EDS text-parsing algorithm successfully classified the majority of free-text chief complaints from an ED computer log. These coded chief complaints were used to describe the case mix of a community teaching-hospital ED.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".