MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4295047764 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1726114/v1

Predicting Hospital Admission among High Acuity Triaged Patients Transported to the Emergency Department in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Based Cohort Study using Machine Learning

2022· preprint· en· W4295047764 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ryan P. Strum, Fabrice Mowbray, Manaf Zargoush, Aaron Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsEmergency departmentTriageMedicineCohortEmergency medicineMedical emergencyHospital admissionPopulationNursingEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Paramedics are mandated to transport emergently triaged patients to the closest emergency department (ED). The closest ED may not be the optimal transport destination if further distanced ED’s can provide specialized care or are less crowded. Machine learning may support paramedic decision-making to transport a specific subgroup of emergently triaged patients that are unlikely to require hospital admission or emergency care to a more appropriate ED. We examined whether prehospital patient characteristics known to paramedics were predictive of hospital admission. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using machine learning algorithms to analyze ED visits of the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System from Jan 1, 2018 to Dec 31, 2019 in Ontario, Canada. We included all adult (≥ 18 years) paramedic transports to the ED who had an emergent Canadian Triage Acuity Scale score (CTAS 2). Eight prehospital characteristic classes known to paramedics were used. We applied four machine learning algorithms that were trained and assessed using 10-fold cross-validation to predict the ED visit disposition of admission to hospital or discharged from ED. Predictive model performance was determined using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals and probabilistic accuracy using the Brier Scaled score. Variable importance scores were computed to determine the top 10 predictors of hospital admission. We also reported sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values to support performance interpretation. Results All machine learning algorithms performed similarly for the prediction of which ED patient visits would be admitted to hospital (AUC 0.77–0.78, Brier Scaled 0.22–0.24). The characteristics most predictive of admission included age 65 to 105 years, referral source from a residential care facility, presenting with a respiratory complaint, and receiving home care. Conclusions Machine learning algorithms performed well in predicting ED visit dispositions using a comprehensive list of prehospital patient characteristics. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to utilize machine learning to predict ED visit outcomes from patient characteristics known prior to paramedic transport. This study has potential to inform paramedic regulations regarding the distribution of emergently triaged patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→