Early Triage of Critically Ill Adult Patients With Mushroom Poisoning: Machine Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early triage of patients with mushroom poisoning is essential for administering precise treatment and reducing mortality. To our knowledge, there has been no established method to triage patients with mushroom poisoning based on clinical data. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to construct a triage system to identify patients with mushroom poisoning based on clinical indicators using several machine learning approaches and to assess the prediction accuracy of these strategies. METHODS: In all, 567 patients were collected from 5 primary care hospitals and facilities in Enshi, Hubei Province, China, and divided into 2 groups; 322 patients from 2 hospitals were used as the training cohort, and 245 patients from 3 hospitals were used as the test cohort. Four machine learning algorithms were used to construct the triage model for patients with mushroom poisoning. Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), decision curve, sensitivity, specificity, and other representative statistics. Feature contributions were evaluated using Shapley additive explanations. RESULTS: Among several machine learning algorithms, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) showed the best discriminative ability in 5-fold cross-validation (AUC=0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.90) and the test set (AUC=0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.96). In the test set, the XGBoost model had a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.81-0.99) and a specificity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73-0.85), whereas the physicians' assessment had a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.72-0.95) and a specificity of 0.66 (95% CI 0.59-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The 14-factor XGBoost model for the early triage of mushroom poisoning can rapidly and accurately identify critically ill patients and will possibly serve as an important basis for the selection of treatment options and referral of patients, potentially reducing patient mortality and improving clinical outcomes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".