MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating the Reliability of a Remote Acuity Prediction Tool in a Canadian Academic Emergency Department

2024· article· en· W4390546778 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laila Nasser, Shelley McLeod, Justin N. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Emergency Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstituteSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriageMedicineEmergency departmentInter-rater reliabilityKappaRetrospective cohort studyCohen's kappaMachine learningAlgorithmConfidence intervalArtificial intelligenceEmergency medicinePsychiatryStatisticsComputer scienceRating scaleSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVE: There is increasing interest in harnessing artificial intelligence to virtually triage patients seeking care. The objective was to examine the reliability of a virtual machine learning algorithm to remotely predict acuity scores for patients seeking emergency department (ED) care by applying the algorithm to retrospective ED data. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of adult patients conducted at an academic tertiary care ED (annual census 65,000) from January 2021 to August 2022. Data including ED visit date and time, patient age, sex, reason for visit, presenting complaint and patient-reported pain score were used by the machine learning algorithm to predict acuity scores. The algorithm was designed to up-triage high-risk complaints to promote safety for remote use. The predicted scores were then compared to nurse-led triage scores previously derived in real time using the electronic Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (eCTAS), an electronic triage decision-support tool used in the ED. Interrater reliability was estimated using kappa statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: In total, 21,469 unique ED patient encounters were included. Exact modal agreement was achieved for 10,396 (48.4%) patient encounters. Interrater reliability ranged from poor to fair, as estimated using unweighted kappa (0.18, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.19), linear-weighted kappa (0.25, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.26), and quadratic-weighted kappa (0.36, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.37) statistics. Using the nurse-led eCTAS score as the reference, the machine learning algorithm overtriaged 9,897 (46.1%) and undertriaged 1,176 (5.5%) cases. Some of the presenting complaints under-triaged were conditions generally requiring further probing to delineate their nature, including abnormal lab/imaging results, visual disturbance, and fever. CONCLUSION: This machine learning algorithm needs further refinement before being safely implemented for patient use.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.486
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.085 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Emergency MedicineSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207