Performance of GPT-5.5 thinking for Manchester Triage System-based emergency department triage: agreement with an expert reference standard and prediction of short-term outcomes.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Sureyya Tuba Fettahoglu, Adem Az, Ozgur Sogut, Tarik Akdemir, Muhammed Furkan Ozden, Salih Fettahoglu, Mucahide Samli Helvacı, Enes Sisman, Mehmet Ozcomlekci, Emir Bilici, Nurbaki Kilic, Tugay Saricicek, Ayse Feyza Celik, Zekeriya Colak, Zulkuf Eralp
{"title":"Performance of GPT-5.5 thinking for Manchester Triage System-based emergency department triage: agreement with an expert reference standard and prediction of short-term outcomes.","authors":"Sureyya Tuba Fettahoglu, Adem Az, Ozgur Sogut, Tarik Akdemir, Muhammed Furkan Ozden, Salih Fettahoglu, Mucahide Samli Helvacı, Enes Sisman, Mehmet Ozcomlekci, Emir Bilici, Nurbaki Kilic, Tugay Saricicek, Ayse Feyza Celik, Zekeriya Colak, Zulkuf Eralp","doi":"10.1186/s12873-026-01704-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the agreement between Manchester Triage System (MTS) category assignments generated by GPT-5.5 Thinking and an expert-derived reference standard in a selected cohort of emergency department (ED) patients, and to assess the model's ability to predict hospital admission and 72-hour mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center observational study prospectively sampled consecutive ED presentations during a prespecified continuous 72-hour window, with triage-time variables and secondary outcomes obtained from hospital records. Patients classified as MTS Category 5 (Blue; nonurgent) by the expert reference standard were excluded from the analytic cohort. GPT-5.5 Thinking was prompted in a standardized single-shot format using structured clinical vignettes derived from triage data. The primary endpoint was agreement between model-assigned MTS categories and an expert reference standard established by two independent blinded emergency medicine specialist rater teams, with disagreements resolved through senior adjudication. Exact agreement, within-1-level agreement, overtriage, undertriage, and dangerous undertriage were calculated. Secondary analyses evaluated prediction of hospital admission and 72-hour mortality using diagnostic performance metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,841 patients were included. Overall agreement between GPT-5.5 Thinking and the expert reference standard was substantial (κ = 0.721; 95% CI 0.691-0.740). Exact agreement rate was 62.0%, and within-1-level agreement rate was 99.0%. Overtriage occurred in 35.3% of cases, undertriage in 2.7%, and dangerous undertriage in 0.2%. Exact agreement rate was significantly lower in patients aged ≥ 65 years than in younger adults (57.1% vs. 64.2%, p = 0.013). For hospital admission, accuracy rate was 79.9%, sensitivity 83.8%, positive predictive value (PPV) 45.2%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 95.9%. For 72-hour mortality, accuracy rate was 86.5%, sensitivity 72.3%, PPV 12.6%, and NPV 99.1%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within this selected ED cohort, GPT-5.5 Thinking showed substantial agreement with expert MTS-based ED triage and generally preserved the ordinal hierarchy of clinical urgency. Its performance was characterized by frequent adjacent-level agreement, predominant overtriage, and very rare but nonzero dangerous undertriage. The model also showed stronger rule-out than rule-in characteristics for hospital admission and 72-hour mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":9002,"journal":{"name":"BMC Emergency Medicine","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13685258/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-026-01704-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the agreement between Manchester Triage System (MTS) category assignments generated by GPT-5.5 Thinking and an expert-derived reference standard in a selected cohort of emergency department (ED) patients, and to assess the model's ability to predict hospital admission and 72-hour mortality.

Methods: This single-center observational study prospectively sampled consecutive ED presentations during a prespecified continuous 72-hour window, with triage-time variables and secondary outcomes obtained from hospital records. Patients classified as MTS Category 5 (Blue; nonurgent) by the expert reference standard were excluded from the analytic cohort. GPT-5.5 Thinking was prompted in a standardized single-shot format using structured clinical vignettes derived from triage data. The primary endpoint was agreement between model-assigned MTS categories and an expert reference standard established by two independent blinded emergency medicine specialist rater teams, with disagreements resolved through senior adjudication. Exact agreement, within-1-level agreement, overtriage, undertriage, and dangerous undertriage were calculated. Secondary analyses evaluated prediction of hospital admission and 72-hour mortality using diagnostic performance metrics.

Results: A total of 1,841 patients were included. Overall agreement between GPT-5.5 Thinking and the expert reference standard was substantial (κ = 0.721; 95% CI 0.691-0.740). Exact agreement rate was 62.0%, and within-1-level agreement rate was 99.0%. Overtriage occurred in 35.3% of cases, undertriage in 2.7%, and dangerous undertriage in 0.2%. Exact agreement rate was significantly lower in patients aged ≥ 65 years than in younger adults (57.1% vs. 64.2%, p = 0.013). For hospital admission, accuracy rate was 79.9%, sensitivity 83.8%, positive predictive value (PPV) 45.2%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 95.9%. For 72-hour mortality, accuracy rate was 86.5%, sensitivity 72.3%, PPV 12.6%, and NPV 99.1%.

Conclusion: Within this selected ED cohort, GPT-5.5 Thinking showed substantial agreement with expert MTS-based ED triage and generally preserved the ordinal hierarchy of clinical urgency. Its performance was characterized by frequent adjacent-level agreement, predominant overtriage, and very rare but nonzero dangerous undertriage. The model also showed stronger rule-out than rule-in characteristics for hospital admission and 72-hour mortality.

GPT-5.5思想在基于曼彻斯特分诊系统的急诊科分诊中的表现:与专家参考标准的一致性和短期结果的预测
目的:在选定的急诊科(ED)患者队列中,评估GPT-5.5 Thinking生成的曼彻斯特分诊系统(MTS)分类分配与专家衍生参考标准之间的一致性,并评估该模型预测住院率和72小时死亡率的能力。方法:这项单中心观察性研究在预先指定的连续72小时窗口内前瞻性地抽样了连续的ED表现,并从医院记录中获得了分诊时间变量和次要结果。经专家参考标准分类为MTS第5类(蓝色;非紧急)的患者被排除在分析队列之外。GPT-5.5思维以标准化的单镜头格式提示,使用来自分诊数据的结构化临床小插曲。主要终点是模型分配的MTS类别和由两个独立的盲法急诊医学专家评分小组建立的专家参考标准之间的一致性,分歧通过高级裁决解决。计算了精确一致性、一级以内一致性、过度分流、分流不足和危险分流不足。二次分析使用诊断性能指标评估住院率和72小时死亡率的预测。结果:共纳入1841例患者。GPT-5.5 Thinking与专家参考标准的总体一致性显著(κ = 0.721; 95% CI 0.691-0.740)。准确符合率为62.0%,一级以内符合率为99.0%。过度分诊占35.3%,分诊不足占2.7%,危险分诊不足占0.2%。≥65岁患者的确切一致性率显著低于年轻成人(57.1% vs. 64.2%, p = 0.013)。入院准确率79.9%,敏感性83.8%,阳性预测值(PPV) 45.2%,阴性预测值(NPV) 95.9%。72小时死亡率的准确率为86.5%,敏感性为72.3%,PPV为12.6%,NPV为99.1%。结论:在这个选定的ED队列中,GPT-5.5 Thinking与专家基于mts的ED分诊有很大的一致性,并且总体上保留了临床紧急程度的顺序等级。它的性能特点是频繁的邻接级一致,主要的过度分类,非常罕见但非零的危险分类。该模型在住院和72小时死亡率方面也显示出更强的排除特征。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Emergency Medicine
BMC Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Emergency Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all urgent and emergency aspects of medicine, in both practice and basic research. In addition, the journal covers aspects of disaster medicine and medicine in special locations, such as conflict areas and military medicine, together with articles concerning healthcare services in the emergency departments.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书