Smart triage: Development of a rapid pediatric triage algorithm for use in low-and-middle income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Early and accurate recognition of children at risk of progressing to critical illness could contribute to improved patient outcomes and resource allocation. In resource limited settings digital triage tools can support decision making and improve healthcare delivery. We developed a model for rapid identification of critically ill children at triage. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of acutely ill children presenting at Jinja Regional Referral Hospital in Eastern Uganda. Variables collected in the emergency department informed the development of a logistic model based on hospital admission using bootstrap stepwise regression. Low and high-risk thresholds for 90% minimum sensitivity and specificity, respectively generated three risk level categories. Performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis on a held-out test set generated by an 80:20 split with 10-fold cross validation. A risk stratification table informed clinical interpretation. Results: ) = -32.888 + (0.252, square root of age) + (0.016, heart rate) + (0.819, temperature) + (-0.022, mid-upper arm circumference) + (0.048 transformed oxygen saturation) + (1.793, parent concern) + (1.012, difficulty breathing) + (1.814, oedema) + (1.506, pallor). The model afforded good discrimination, calibration, and risk stratification at the selected thresholds of 8% and 40%. Conclusion: In a low income, pediatric population, we developed a nine variable triage model with high sensitivity and specificity to predict who should be admitted. The triage model can be integrated into any digital platform and used with minimal training to guide rapid identification of critically ill children at first contact. External validation and clinical implementation are in progress.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".