Artificial Intelligence-Based Triage for Patients with Acute Abdominal Pain in Emergency Department; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence (AI) is the development of computer systems which are capable of doing human intelligence tasks such as decision making and problem solving. AI-based tools have been used for predicting various factors in medicine including risk stratification, diagnosis and choice of treatment. AI can also be of considerable help in emergency departments, especially patients' triage. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the application of AI in patients presenting with acute abdominal pain to estimate emergency severity index version 4 (ESI-4) score without the estimate of the required resources. METHODS: A mixed-model approach was used for predicting the ESI-4 score. Seventy percent of the patient cases were used for training the models and the remaining 30% for testing the accuracy of the models. During the training phase, patients were randomly selected and were given to systems for analysis. The output, which was the level of triage, was compared with the gold standard (emergency medicine physician). During the test phase of the study, another group of randomly selected patients were evaluated by the systems and the results were then compared with the gold standard. RESULTS: Totally, 215 patients who were triaged by the emergency medicine specialist were enrolled in the study. Triage Levels 1 and 5 were omitted due to low number of cases. In triage Level 2, all systems showed fair level of prediction with Neural Network being the highest. In Level 3, all systems again showed fair level of prediction. However, in triage Level 4, decision tree was the only system with fair prediction. CONCLUSION: The application of AI in triage of patients with acute abdominal pain resulted in a model with acceptable level of accuracy. The model works with optimized number of input variables for quick assessment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".