ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Geographical validation of the Smart Triage Model by age group.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
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.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.