Implementation of the YEARS algorithm to optimise pulmonary embolism diagnostic workup in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Excessive use of CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) to investigate pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) contributes to adverse patient outcomes. Non-invasive D-dimer testing, in the context of a clinical algorithm, may help decrease unnecessary imaging but this has not been widely implemented in Canadian EDs. AIM: To improve the diagnostic yield of CTPA for PE by 5% (absolute) within 12 months of implementing the YEARS algorithm. MEASURES AND DESIGN: Single centre study of all ED patients >18 years investigated for PE with D-dimer and/or CTPA between February 2021 and January 2022. Primary and secondary outcomes were the diagnostic yield of CTPA and frequency of CTPA ordered compared with baseline. Process measures included the percentage of D-dimer tests ordered with CTPA and CTPAs ordered with D-dimers <500 µg/L Fibrinogen Equivalent Units (FEU). The balancing measure was the number of PEs identified on CTPA within 30 days of index visit. Multidisciplinary stakeholders developed plan- do-study-act cycles based on the YEARS algorithm. RESULTS: Over 12 months, 2695 patients were investigated for PE, of which 942 had a CTPA. Compared with baseline, the CTPA yield increased by 2.9% (12.6% vs 15.5%, 95% CI -0.06% to 5.9%) and the proportion of patients that underwent CTPA decreased by 11.4% (46.4% vs 35%, 95% CI -14.1% to -8.8%). The percentage of CTPAs ordered with a D-dimer increased by 26.3% (30.7% vs 57%, 95% CI 22.2% 30.3%) and there were two missed PE (2/2695, 0.07%). IMPACT: Implementing the YEARS criteria may safely improve the diagnostic yield of CTPAs and reduce the number of CTPAs completed without an associated increase in missed clinically significant PEs. This project provides a model for optimising the use of CTPA in the ED.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".