ArticleCJEM2025
Machine learning outperforms the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) in predicting need for early critical care.
Article in CJEM, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical accuracy and applications of the Pediatric Assessment Triangle in emergency care: a narrative review.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Mapping artificial intelligence models in emergency medicine: A scoping review on artificial intelligence performance in emergency care and education.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveThis 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.
methodsThree 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsMachine 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39560909What 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.