Canadian triage and acuity scale in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the relationship between expense and waiting time with using Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) level, to evaluate the validity of the CTAS triage that was implemented in Emergency Department (ED) Materials and Methods: This was a prospective observational study conducted between April 1st and July 6th, 2008. Patients who were triaged by emergency medicine residents at our institution using CTAS (level I-V) were included in the study. The correlations between CTAS levels with waiting times and hospital expense of the patient was calculated. Results: Seven hundred and eighty nine patients were enrolled. The median expenses associated with each CTAS level were CTAS level I 2,576 Baht, CTAS level II 745 Baht, CTAS level III 155 Baht, CTAS level IV 124 Baht and CTAS level V 80 Baht. The median waiting times were CTAS level I 9 minutes, CTAS level II 12 minutes, CTAS level III 18 minutes, CTAS level IV 32 minutes and CTAS level V 42 minutes. For both variables, the differences between groups were statistically significant as determined by the Kruskal-Wallis test in both variables. Conclusion: CTAS is significantly related to the cost of treatment and the waiting time in patients who visited the 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".