Back

Context-Aware Emergency Department Triage Using Pairwise Comparisons and Bradley-Terry Aggregation

Jarrett, P.; Reeder, J.; McDonald, S.; Diercks, D.; Jamieson, A. R.

2026-03-17 health informatics
10.64898/2026.03.14.26348412 medRxiv
Show abstract

STRUCTURED ABSTRACTO_ST_ABSObjectiveC_ST_ABSTo evaluate a ranking approach for emergency department (ED) waiting room prioritization that uses pairwise clinical comparisons aggregated via a Bradley-Terry model, and to assess its cross-site stability without site-specific training. Materials and MethodsUsing the Multimodal Clinical Monitoring in the Emergency Department (MC-MED) dataset (118,385 ED visits, Site A), we defined a composite deterioration outcome (intensive care unit [ICU] admission, intubation, vasopressor, ventilation, or death within 6 hours) and evaluated 7 queue-ordering policies across 1,000 simulated shifts. The primary endpoint was Recall@5 for deteriorators; secondary endpoints included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and simulated time-to-provider (TTP) metrics. External validation used MIMIC-IV-ED (425,087 visits, Site B) with 500 shifts. Methods reported per TRIPOD-LLM. ResultsOn MC-MED, BT-LLM-Enriched (Bradley-Terry ranking with a large language model [LLM] judge, GPT-4.1, using full diagnoses and medications) exceeded the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) on the primary endpoint: Recall@5 0.587 vs. 0.491 (p<0.001). XGBoost achieved Recall@5 0.648 but required large site-specific labeled training data. On external validation, supervised model performance attenuated (XGBoost AUROC 0.892 to 0.807) while BT-LLM-Enriched remained stable (0.826 to 0.831); the two were statistically indistinguishable on external data. DiscussionUnder external validation, supervised model performance attenuated while zero-shot LLM ranking remained stable, suggesting cross-site stability without requiring site-specific training data. ConclusionPairwise ranking with an LLM judge significantly outperforms ESI-based ordering and remains stable across sites without local training, matching supervised models on external data.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.