MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402454284 · doi:10.2196/56729

Improving Triage Accuracy in Prehospital Emergency Telemedicine: Scoping Review of Machine Learning–Enhanced Approaches

2024· article· en· W4402454284 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Daniel Raff, Kurtis Stewart, Michelle C. Yang, Jessie Shang, Sonya Cressman, Roger Tam, Jessica Wong, Martin C. Tammemägi, Kendall Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversitySimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriageTelemedicineOvercrowdingMedical emergencyEmergency departmentMedicineScopusMEDLINEPopulationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEmergency medicineHealth careNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prehospital telemedicine triage systems combined with machine learning (ML) methods have the potential to improve triage accuracy and safely redirect low-acuity patients from attending the emergency department. However, research in prehospital settings is limited but needed; emergency department overcrowding and adverse patient outcomes are increasingly common. OBJECTIVE: In this scoping review, we sought to characterize the existing methods for ML-enhanced telemedicine emergency triage. In order to support future research, we aimed to delineate what data sources, predictors, labels, ML models, and performance metrics were used, and in which telemedicine triage systems these methods were applied. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted, querying multiple databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore) through February 24, 2023, to identify potential ML-enhanced methods, and for those eligible, relevant study characteristics were extracted, including prehospital triage setting, types of predictors, ground truth labeling method, ML models used, and performance metrics. Inclusion criteria were restricted to the triage of emergency telemedicine services using ML methods on an undifferentiated (disease nonspecific) population. Only primary research studies in English were considered. Furthermore, only those studies using data collected remotely (as opposed to derived from physical assessments) were included. In order to limit bias, we exclusively included articles identified through our predefined search criteria and had 3 researchers (DR, JS, and KS) independently screen the resulting studies. We conducted a narrative synthesis of findings to establish a knowledge base in this domain and identify potential gaps to be addressed in forthcoming ML-enhanced methods. RESULTS: A total of 165 unique records were screened for eligibility and 15 were included in the review. Most studies applied ML methods during emergency medical dispatch (7/15, 47%) or used chatbot applications (5/15, 33%). Patient demographics and health status variables were the most common predictors, with a notable absence of social variables. Frequently used ML models included support vector machines and tree-based methods. ML-enhanced models typically outperformed conventional triage algorithms, and we found a wide range of methods used to establish ground truth labels. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review observed heterogeneity in dataset size, predictors, clinical setting (triage process), and reported performance metrics. Standard structured predictors, including age, sex, and comorbidities, across articles suggest the importance of these inputs; however, there was a notable absence of other potentially useful data, including medications, social variables, and health system exposure. Ground truth labeling practices should be reported in a standard fashion as the true model performance hinges on these labels. This review calls for future work to form a standardized framework, thereby supporting consistent reporting and performance comparisons across ML-enhanced prehospital triage systems.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.143
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.143
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0210.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207