Prognosis tools for short-term adverse events in older emergency department users: result of a Québec observational prospective cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The “Program of Research on the Integration of Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy” (PRISMA-7) and “Emergency room evaluation and recommendations” (ER 2 ) are both clinical tools used in Québec Emergency Departments (EDs) for screening of older ED users at higher risk of poor outcomes, such as prolonged length of stay (LOS) in EDs and in hospital. The study aimed to: 1) examine whether the PRISMA-7 and ER 2 risk levels were associated with length of stays in ED and hospital, as well as hospital admission; and 2) compare the criteria performance (i.e. , sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, likelihood ratios and area under receiver operating characteristic curve) of the PRISMA-7 and ER2 high-risk levels for these three ED adverse events in Québec older patients visiting ED on a stretcher. Methods A total of 1905 older patients who visited the ED of the Jewish General Hospital (Montreal, Québec, Canada) on stretchers were recruited in this prospective observational cohort. Upon their ED arrival, PRISMA-7 and ER 2 were performed. The outcomes were LOS in ED and in hospital, and hospital admission. Results The PRISMA-7 and ER 2 risk levels were associated with length of stay in ED and hospital as well as with hospital admission. Prolonged stays and higher hospitalization rates were associated with high-risk levels, whereas those in low-risk level groups had significantly shorter LOS and a lower rate of hospital admission ( P < 0.006). While performance measures were poor for both assessment tools, ER 2 had a greater prognostic testing accuracy compared with PRISMA-7. Conclusion PRISMA-7 and ER 2 were both associated with incidental short-term ED adverse events but their overall prognostic testing accuracy was low, suggesting that they cannot be used as prognostic tools for this purpose.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".