MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387301024 · doi:10.1186/s12911-023-02307-z

Development of a machine learning-based acuity score prediction model for virtual care settings

2023· article· en· W4387301024 on OpenAlexaffabout
Justin N. Hall, Ron Galaev, Marina Gavrilov, Shawn Mondoux

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriageMachine learningArtificial intelligenceGradient boostingHealth informaticsRandom forestDecision treeContext (archaeology)Computer scienceMedicineMedical emergencyPublic healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare is increasingly digitized, yet remote and automated machine learning (ML) triage prediction systems for virtual urgent care use remain limited. The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) is the gold standard triage tool for in-person care in Canada. The current work describes the development of a ML-based acuity score modelled after the CTAS system. METHODS: The ML-based acuity score model was developed using 2,460,109 de-identified patient-level encounter records from three large healthcare organizations (Ontario, Canada). Data included presenting complaint, clinical modifiers, age, sex, and self-reported pain. 2,041,987 records were high acuity (CTAS 1-3) and 416,870 records were low acuity (CTAS 4-5). Five models were trained: decision tree, k-nearest neighbors, random forest, gradient boosting regressor, and neural net. The outcome variable of interest was the acuity score predicted by the ML system compared to the CTAS score assigned by the triage nurse. RESULTS: Gradient boosting regressor demonstrated the greatest prediction accuracy. This final model was tuned toward up triaging to minimize patient risk if adopted into the clinical context. The algorithm predicted the same score in 47.4% of cases, and the same or more acute score in 95.0% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The ML algorithm shows reasonable predictive accuracy and high predictive safety and was developed using the largest dataset of its kind to date. Future work will involve conducting a pilot study to validate and prospectively assess reliability of the ML algorithm to assign acuity scores remotely.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision MakingSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207