MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386555821 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.02604

Screening of Pneumonia and Urinary Tract Infection at Triage using TriNet

2023· preprint· en· W4386555821 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stephen Z. Lu

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsTriageEmergency departmentWorkloadMedicineMedical diagnosisPneumoniaWorkflowEmergency medicinePopulationMedical emergencyHealth careIntensive care medicineComputer scienceInternal medicineNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the steady rise in population demographics and longevity, emergency department visits are increasing across North America. As more patients visit the emergency department, traditional clinical workflows become overloaded and inefficient, leading to prolonged wait-times and reduced healthcare quality. One of such workflows is the triage medical directive, impeded by limited human workload, inaccurate diagnoses and invasive over-testing. To address this issue, we propose TriNet: a machine learning model for medical directives that automates first-line screening at triage for conditions requiring downstream testing for diagnosis confirmation. To verify screening potential, TriNet was trained on hospital triage data and achieved high positive predictive values in detecting pneumonia (0.86) and urinary tract infection (0.93). These models outperform current clinical benchmarks, indicating that machine-learning medical directives can offer cost-free, non-invasive screening with high specificity for common conditions, reducing the risk of over-testing while increasing emergency department efficiency.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.074 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→