Machine learning outperforms the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) in predicting need for early critical care.

IF 2.4 CJEM Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1007/s43678-024-00807-z
Lars Grant, Magueye Diagne, Rafael Aroutiunian, Devin Hopkins, Tian Bai, Flemming Kondrup, Gregory Clark
{"title":"Machine learning outperforms the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) in predicting need for early critical care.","authors":"Lars Grant, Magueye Diagne, Rafael Aroutiunian, Devin Hopkins, Tian Bai, Flemming Kondrup, Gregory Clark","doi":"10.1007/s43678-024-00807-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study objective: </strong>This study investigates the potential to improve emergency department (ED) triage using machine learning models by comparing their predictive performance with the Canadian Triage Acuity Scale (CTAS) in identifying the need for critical care within 12 h of ED arrival.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three machine learning models (LASSO regression, gradient-boosted trees, and a deep learning model with embeddings) were developed using retrospective data from 670,841 ED visits to the Jewish General Hospital from June 2012 to Jan 2021. The model outcome was the need for critical care within the first 12 h of ED arrival. Metrics, including the areas under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (ROC) and precision-recall curve (PRC) were used for performance evaluation. Shapley additive explanation scores were used to compare predictor importance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The three machine learning models (deep learning, gradient-boosted trees and LASSO regression) had areas under the ROC of 0.926 ± 0.003, 0.912 ± 0.003 and 0.892 ± 0.004 respectively, and areas under the PRC of 0.27 ± 0.01, 0.24 ± 0.01 and 0.23 ± 0.01 respectively. In comparison, the CTAS score had an area under the ROC of 0.804 ± 0.006 and under the PRC of 0.11 ± 0.01. The predictors of most importance were similar between the models.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Machine learning models outperformed CTAS in identifying, at the point of ED triage, patients likely to need early critical care. If validated in future studies, machine learning models such as the ones developed here may be considered for incorporation in future revisions of the CTAS triage algorithm, potentially improving discrimination and reliability.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-024-00807-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study objective: This study investigates the potential to improve emergency department (ED) triage using machine learning models by comparing their predictive performance with the Canadian Triage Acuity Scale (CTAS) in identifying the need for critical care within 12 h of ED arrival.

Methods: Three machine learning models (LASSO regression, gradient-boosted trees, and a deep learning model with embeddings) were developed using retrospective data from 670,841 ED visits to the Jewish General Hospital from June 2012 to Jan 2021. The model outcome was the need for critical care within the first 12 h of ED arrival. Metrics, including the areas under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (ROC) and precision-recall curve (PRC) were used for performance evaluation. Shapley additive explanation scores were used to compare predictor importance.

Results: The three machine learning models (deep learning, gradient-boosted trees and LASSO regression) had areas under the ROC of 0.926 ± 0.003, 0.912 ± 0.003 and 0.892 ± 0.004 respectively, and areas under the PRC of 0.27 ± 0.01, 0.24 ± 0.01 and 0.23 ± 0.01 respectively. In comparison, the CTAS score had an area under the ROC of 0.804 ± 0.006 and under the PRC of 0.11 ± 0.01. The predictors of most importance were similar between the models.

Conclusions: Machine learning models outperformed CTAS in identifying, at the point of ED triage, patients likely to need early critical care. If validated in future studies, machine learning models such as the ones developed here may be considered for incorporation in future revisions of the CTAS triage algorithm, potentially improving discrimination and reliability.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在预测早期重症监护需求方面,机器学习优于加拿大分诊和急性量表(CTAS)。
研究目的本研究通过比较机器学习模型与加拿大分诊急性量表(CTAS)在确定急诊科(ED)到达后 12 小时内是否需要重症监护方面的预测性能,探讨利用机器学习模型改善急诊科(ED)分诊的潜力:利用 2012 年 6 月至 2021 年 1 月期间犹太综合医院 670,841 次急诊就诊的回顾性数据,开发了三种机器学习模型(LASSO 回归、梯度提升树和嵌入式深度学习模型)。模型结果是急诊室到达后 12 小时内的重症监护需求。性能评估采用的指标包括接收器-操作者特征曲线(ROC)和精确度-召回曲线(PRC)下的面积。Shapley 加性解释得分用于比较预测因子的重要性:三种机器学习模型(深度学习、梯度增强树和 LASSO 回归)的 ROC 下面积分别为 0.926 ± 0.003、0.912 ± 0.003 和 0.892 ± 0.004,PRC 下面积分别为 0.27 ± 0.01、0.24 ± 0.01 和 0.23 ± 0.01。相比之下,CTAS 评分的 ROC 下面积为 0.804 ± 0.006,PRC 下面积为 0.11 ± 0.01。两种模型中最重要的预测因子相似:机器学习模型在急诊室分流时识别可能需要早期重症监护的患者方面优于 CTAS。如果在未来的研究中得到验证,机器学习模型(如本文开发的模型)可考虑纳入 CTAS 分诊算法的未来修订版中,从而有可能提高分辨能力和可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Machine learning outperforms the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) in predicting need for early critical care. The role of partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in pre-hospital trauma. Just the facts: evaluation and management of epistaxis. Safety and accuracy of the computer interpretation of normal ECGs at triage. Correction: Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of rapid HIV testing in Canadian Emergency Departments: a mixed methods study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1