Evaluation de la mise en place de l'échelle de tri et de gravité canadienne au service d'accueil et d'urgences du CHU de Nantes ( une étude prospective sur 7 jours)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'augmentation de la fréquentation des services d'urgences en France a rendu indispensable la mise en place d'une procédure de triage des patients à leur arrivée. Depuis mai 2002, la classification canadienne est utilisée à Nantes et son utilisation rend nécessaire son évaluation. Nous avons mené une étude prospective sur 7 jours dans le service des urgences à Nantes concernant l'ensemble des patients admis. Les résultats sont médiocres : 37,8 % des patients ont été codés. Il n'y a pas de corrélation entre les délais de prise en charge et le niveau de priorité attribué (p= 0.08). La classification ne participe pas à la gestion du délai d'attente. La classification canadienne est mal utilisée à Nantes du fait d'un défaut de formation des infirmières d'accueil et d'orientation et du manque de lits d'aval provoquant un encombrement du service d'urgences.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".