Cost-effectiveness analysis protocol of the Smart Triage program: A point-of-care digital triage platform for pediatric sepsis in Eastern Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a clinical syndrome characterized by organ dysfunction due to presumed or proven infection. Severe cases can have case fatality ratio 25% or higher in low-middle income countries, but early diagnosis and timely treatment have a proven benefit. The Smart Triage program in Jinja Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda will provide expedited sepsis treatment in children through a data-driven electronic patient triage system. To complement the ongoing Smart Triage interventional trial, we propose methods for a concurrent cost-effectiveness analysis of the Smart Triage platform. METHODS: We will use a decision-analytic model taking a societal perspective, combining government and out-of-pocket costs, as patients bear a sizeable portion of healthcare costs in Uganda due to the lack of universal health coverage. Previously published secondary data will be used to link healthcare utilization with costs and intermediate outcomes with mortality. We will model uncertainty via probabilistic sensitivity analysis and present findings at various willingness-to-pay thresholds using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. DISCUSSION: Our proposed analysis represents a first step in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of an innovative digital triage platform designed to improve clinical outcomes in pediatric sepsis through expediting care in low-resource settings. Our use of a decision analytic model to link secondary costing data, incorporate post-discharge healthcare utilization, and model clinical endpoints is also novel in the pediatric sepsis triage literature for low-middle income countries. Our analysis, together with subsequent analyses modelling budget impact and scale up, will inform future modifications to the Smart Triage platform, as well as motivate scale-up to the district and national levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration of parent clinical trial: NCT04304235, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04304235. Registered 11 March 2020.
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 | 0.051 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.004 |
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".