Geographical validation of the Smart Triage Model by age group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infectious diseases in neonates account for half of the under-five mortality in low- and middle-income countries. Data-driven algorithms such as clinical prediction models can be used to efficiently detect critically ill children in order to optimize care and reduce mortality. Thus far, only a handful of prediction models have been externally validated and are limited to neonatal in-hospital mortality. The aim of this study is to externally validate a previously derived clinical prediction model (Smart Triage) using a combined prospective baseline cohort from Uganda and Kenya with a composite endpoint of hospital admission, mortality, and readmission. We evaluated model discrimination using area under the receiver-operator curve (AUROC) and visualized calibration plots with age subsets (< 30 days, ≤ 2 months, ≤ 6 months, and < 5 years). Due to reduced performance in neonates (< 1 month), we re-estimated the intercept and coefficients and selected new thresholds to maximize sensitivity and specificity. 11595 participants under the age of five (under-5) were included in the analysis. The proportion with an endpoint ranged from 8.9% in all children under-5 (including neonates) to 26% in the neonatal subset alone. The model achieved good discrimination for children under-5 with AUROC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79-0.82) but poor discrimination for neonates with AUROC of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.55-0.70). Sensitivity at the low-risk thresholds (CI) were 85% (83%-87%) and 68% (58%-76%) for children under-5 and neonates, respectively. After model revision for neonates, we achieved an AUROC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.87) with 13% and 41% as the low- and high-risk thresholds, respectively. The updated Smart Triage performs well in its predictive ability across different age groups and can be incorporated into current triage guidelines at local healthcare facilities. Additional validation of the model is indicated, especially for the neonatal model.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".