Using age, triage score, and disposition data from emergency department electronic records to improve Influenza-like illness surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Markers of illness severity are increasingly captured in emergency department (ED) electronic systems, but their value for surveillance is not known. We assessed the value of age, triage score, and disposition data from ED electronic records for predicting influenza-related hospitalizations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 2006 to January 2011, weekly counts of pneumonia and influenza (P&I) hospitalizations from five Montreal hospitals were modeled using negative binomial regression. Over lead times of 0-5 weeks, we assessed the predictive ability of weekly counts of 1) total ED visits, 2) ED visits with influenza-like illness (ILI), and 3) ED visits with ILI stratified by age, triage score, or disposition. Models were adjusted for secular trends, seasonality, and autocorrelation. Model fit was assessed using Akaike information criterion, and predictive accuracy using the mean absolute scaled error (MASE). RESULTS: Predictive accuracy for P&I hospitalizations during non-pandemic years was improved when models included visits from patients ≥65 years old and visits resulting in admission/transfer/death (MASE of 0.64, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.54-0.80) compared to overall ILI visits (0.89, 95% CI 0.69-1.10). During the H1N1 pandemic year, including visits from patients <18 years old, visits with high priority triage scores, or visits resulting in admission/transfer/death resulted in the best model fit. DISCUSSION: Age and disposition data improved model fit and moderately reduced the prediction error for P&I hospitalizations; triage score improved model fit only during the pandemic year. CONCLUSION: Incorporation of age and severity measures available in ED records can improve ILI surveillance algorithms.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".