MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414982408 · doi:10.28982/josam.8315

Comparison of triple triage system and CTAS (Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale) system in the emergency department

2025· article· en· W4414982408 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mehmet Koşargelir, Güleser Akpınar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgery and Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersİstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi
KeywordsTriageEmergency departmentGlasgow Coma ScaleScale (ratio)Patient careEmergency physician

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Aim: Triage systems are crucial for determining patient care priorities and efficiently utilizing resources in emergency departments. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the three-stage triage system (TR) and the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) system in terms of patient safety, resource management, and alignment with expert opinions in an adult emergency department. Methods: A prospective, cross-sectional, single-blind clinical study was conducted in an adult emergency department between October 1 and October 15, 2021. Patients aged 15 years and older with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 15 were included in the study. Trauma patients, patients transported by ambulance, and patients under 15 years of age were excluded from the study. CTAS was applied by a single emergency medicine resident on odd days of the month, while TR was applied on the even days. The specialist physician who provided the reference triage categories was unaware of the initial assessments. Primary outcomes included inter-rater agreement (weighted kappa coefficient), triage accuracy, and resource utilization patterns. Statistical analysis used the Kruskal-Wallis H test, Fisher's exact test, and a weighted kappa coefficient with a significance level set at P<0.05. Results: A total of 620 patients were evaluated (TR: n=290, CTAS: n=330). CTAS demonstrated significantly higher agreement with expert opinion compared to TR (κ=0.375, P<0.001) (κ=0.835, P<0.001). In CTAS, the rate of inadequate triage was significantly lower (12%) compared to TR (28%). CTAS demonstrated a more balanced patient distribution across emergency levels and rational resource utilization, resulting in appropriate requests for radiological examinations at T3 level (32.35% compared to 78.95% in the yellow zone of TR, P<0.001). Hospital admission rates were higher in CTAS (seven patients) compared to TR (one patient). Conclusion: The CTAS system demonstrated significantly higher compliance and lower triage error rates compared to the TR system, with expert consensus, thereby showing superior performance in terms of patient safety and resource management. The implementation of CTAS in emergency departments may improve the quality of patient care and optimize resource utilization.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgery and MedicineSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207