Development of a machine learning-based acuity score prediction model for virtual care settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".