Validity of the Paediatric Canadian Triage Acuity Scale in a Tertiary Hospital: An Analysis of Severity Markers' Variability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing influx of patients and frequent overcrowding, the adoption of a valid triage system, capable of distinguishing patients who need urgent care, from those who can wait safely is paramount. Hence, the aim of this study is to evaluate the validity of the Paediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (PaedCTAS) in a Portuguese tertiary hospital. Furthermore, we aim to study the performance and appropriateness of the different surrogate severity markers to validate triage. This is a retrospective study considering all visits to the hospital's Paediatric Emergency Department (PED) between 2014 and 2019. This study considers cut-offs on all triage levels for dichotomization in order to calculate validity measures e.g. sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios, ROC curves; using hospital admission, admission to intensive care and the use of resources as outcomes/markers of severity. Over the study period there were 0.2% visits triaged as Level 1, 5.7% as Level 2, 39.4% as Level 3, 50.5% as Level 4, 4.2% as Level 5, from a total of 452,815 PED visits. The area under ROC curve was 0.96, 0.71, 0.76, 0.78, 0.59 for the surrogate markers: "Admitted to intensive care"; "Admitted to intermediate care"; "Admitted to hospital"; "Investigations performed in the PED" and "Uses PED resources", respectively. The association found between triage levels and the surrogate markers of severity suggests that the PedCTAS is highly valid. Different surrogate outcome markers convey different degrees of severity, hence different degrees of urgency. Therefore, the cut-offs to calculate validation measures and the thresholds of such measures should be chosen accordingly.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it