Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 69 references

Feasibility of Mental Health Triage Call Priority Prediction Using Machine Learning

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a deep-learning model can predict whether a mental-health helpline call is high priority from the caller's voice alone, with 92% balanced accuracy on 459 recorded calls.

desk verdict Genuine first application of audio-only deep learning to mental-health helpline triage, but the 92% balanced accuracy is unverifiable from the text and the train/test counts contradict the demographic table. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00057 v1 pith:INEDDDAZ submitted 2024-11-25 eess.AS cs.SD

Rajib Rana , Niall Higgins , Kazi Nazmul Haque , John Reilly , Kylie Burke , Kathryn Turner , Terry Stedman This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.AScs.SD
keywords mentalhealthtriagecallprioritypredictiondeeplearningvoiceanalysisspeech-basedassessmenthelplinecallsscalebalancedaccuracy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tests whether a machine-learning model can predict the priority of a mental-health helpline call from the caller's voice alone, without transcribing what is said. On 459 recorded calls labelled with the UK Mental Health Triage Scale, the authors collapse the seven triage codes into high-priority (A-D) and low-priority (E-G) classes and train a deep neural network on the audio. The model reaches 92% balanced accuracy on a held-out test set, with 92% sensitivity for high-priority calls and 91% specificity. The stated purpose is not to replace clinicians but to give call operators a real-time, objective signal that supports triage decisions and helps avoid delayed assistance for high-risk callers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a hierarchical classifier built from deep neural networks that learns a representation directly from the audio recording of the call, rather than from transcribed text or manually specified acoustic features such as pitch and articulation rate. The learned representation is fed into a classifier that outputs a priority level, and the authors wrap this in a prototype application that displays a running priority score and confidence estimate to the call taker. The other essential component is the triage labelling itself: the seven-level UK Mental Health Triage Scale is collapsed into two classes, high priority (A-D) and low priority (E-G), so the model is trained as a binary predictor of urgency.

What would settle it

Re-triage a sample of the 459 calls with independent clinicians and compute inter-rater agreement on the high/low split; then test the trained model on calls that receive unanimous labels. If agreement is poor, or if accuracy on unanimously labelled calls falls well below 92%, the central claim fails. A second decisive test is external validation: train on this dataset and evaluate on recordings from a different helpline or a later time period, where the same accuracy would not be expected to hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that call priority can be estimated from vocal properties of the caller's speech with clinically useful accuracy. On a test set of 82 calls (38 high priority, 44 low priority), the hierarchical deep-learning classifier correctly identified 35 of 38 high-priority calls and 40 of 44 low-priority calls, yielding a balanced accuracy of 92%, sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 91%, precision of 90%, and an F1 score of 91.2%. The authors position this as a feasibility demonstration: because the model uses learned audio representations rather than hand-crafted acoustic features or transcripts, it can run while a call is in progress and provide continuous priority estimates. They note that no previous study has applied this approach to mental-health helpline audio, and they treat the result as evidence that voice-based triage support is worth developing further.

Load-bearing premise

The entire result depends on the clinician-assigned triage codes being accurate and reliable, because the model is trained to predict those codes, and on the A-D versus E-G split preserving the distinction that matters for call handling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Voice-based triage support is feasible for mental-health helplines: a model can produce a usable priority signal from audio without needing call transcripts.
  • Call operators could receive a continuously updating priority and confidence display during a call, allowing them to focus attention on callers the model judges high-risk.
  • Because the model relies on vocal delivery rather than spoken content, it can assist triage without requiring callers to state specific symptoms.
  • The reported false-negative rate of 8% means roughly 1 in 12 high-priority calls would be missed; the authors explicitly aim to minimize this class of error in future versions.
  • Deployment would require clinical oversight: the paper frames the output as decision support, not an autonomous triage decision.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A more demanding test than balanced accuracy on one dataset would be external validation: if the model is trained on one helpline's recordings and tested on another's, the accuracy may fall because of different recording equipment, accents, and caller demographics.
  • The A-D/E-G split is clinically coarse: an A emergency call and a D moderate-risk call are grouped together, so the 92% figure says little about whether the model can discriminate the most urgent calls from the merely urgent ones.
  • A natural extension the authors do not test is calibration: for a triage aid, the confidence score should track the true probability of high priority, and miscalibrated confidence could mislead call operators even if ranking accuracy is good.
  • The label reliability question could be turned into an experiment: ask several clinicians to re-triage the same calls and measure inter-rater agreement; if agreement is low, the reported accuracy overstates the model's actual predictive ceiling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a feasibility study in which machine learning is applied to audio recordings of 459 calls to an Australian mental health helpline. Clinician-assigned UK Mental Health Triage Scale codes (A–G) are dichotomized into high priority (A–D) and low priority (E–G), and a hierarchical deep neural network classifier is trained to predict the binary priority from the caller's voice. On a held-out test set of 82 calls, the authors report a confusion matrix with 35/38 high-priority and 40/44 low-priority calls correctly classified, yielding a balanced accuracy of 92%, sensitivity 92%, specificity 91%, and precision 90%. The paper also describes a prototype application interface for real-time decision support. The central claim is that voice-only deep learning can accurately estimate mental health triage priority, but the manuscript lacks the methodological detail needed to verify or reproduce the result.

Significance. If the reported result were fully supported, the paper would provide a useful feasibility signal for voice-based triage support in mental health helplines, a domain where prior work is sparse. The authors deserve credit for obtaining ethics approval, using manually de-identified real helpline recordings, and reporting a held-out test set rather than retraining on the test labels; the confusion matrix and most derived metrics are internally computable. However, the significance is currently undermined by two load-bearing problems: the model is described only as a 'hierarchical classifier using deep learning neural networks' with no architecture, input representation, training, or validation details, and the reported data counts in Tables 4 and 7 are mutually inconsistent. With no confidence intervals, no repeated trials, and incomplete demographic reporting, the headline 92% figure cannot currently be credited as a reproducible or well-calibrated estimate.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] The model is described only as 'a hierarchical classifier using deep learning neural networks' with no architecture, input representation, audio front-end, segmentation scheme, training procedure, validation strategy, or hyperparameters. The central claim of 92% balanced accuracy therefore cannot be independently assessed, checked for leakage, or reproduced; this is a load-bearing reporting gap.
  2. [§3.1, Tables 4 and 7] Table 4 counts 171+38=209 high-priority and 206+44=250 low-priority calls, while Table 7 reports 212 high-priority and 247 low-priority calls; both tables sum to 459, so at least one table misreports the data. Since Table 4 defines the test set underlying the confusion matrix, this 3-call per-class discrepancy makes the test-set composition and all derived metrics unverifiable. The authors should provide per-triage-category train/test counts and reconcile the tables.
  3. [§3.4] The results section contains unfilled placeholders ('XX males', 'XX females', 'mean age of XX'), so the demographic table is incomplete and the representativeness of the sample cannot be evaluated. This is an incomplete-reporting issue that must be fixed before the results can be interpreted.
  4. [§3.4, Table 6] No confidence intervals or repeated-run variability are reported for a single test set of only 82 calls; for example, sensitivity of 35/38 has a wide 95% confidence interval, so reporting '92%' as a point estimate conveys false precision. In addition, the reported F1 score of 91.2% does not match the confusion matrix, which gives 2*35/(2*35+3+4)=90.9%.
  5. [§3.1, Table 2] The ground-truth labels are clinician-assigned triage codes made during the same calls whose audio is used as model input, so the model may be learning correlates of clinician judgment rather than objective risk. The Discussion's claim that the tool is 'free from the biases that often influence human decisions' is not supported by the evidence; the authors should report inter-rater reliability of the triage labels or validate the model against independent clinical outcomes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] There is a typo in 'They key idea of this paper' that should read 'The key idea'.
  2. [Table 4] The header 'T rain Samples' should read 'Train Samples'.
  3. [§2.3] The sentence 'Most studies use audio transcription, with only studies using audio and text separately' is grammatically unclear and should be rewritten.
  4. [§3.4 / §4] Section 3.5 describes an application that updates priority and confidence 'throughout the call', while Section 4 states the analysis 'did not provide this in real time to the listener'; this contradiction should be resolved.
  5. [§3.4] The statement 'there have been no previous studies conducted on mental health helpline data' is asserted without a systematic literature search and should be either supported or softened.
  6. [Table 2 citation] The UK Mental Health Triage Scale is attributed to Sands et al. [2001], but the cited reference appears to describe an interactive computer program for triage competence; the citation should be verified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported 92% balanced accuracy is a held-out test-set result, not a refit of the training labels.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a standard supervised-learning pipeline: 459 calls with clinician-assigned triage levels (A-G) are collapsed into high (A-D) and low (E-G) classes, split into train/test sets (Table 4), a deep classifier is trained on audio representations, and the reported 92% balanced accuracy is computed from the held-out test confusion matrix (Tables 5-6). The counts in the confusion matrix reproduce the reported sensitivity (35/38 = 92%), specificity (40/44 = 91%), and balanced accuracy ((35/38 + 40/44)/2 = 91.5%). The training labels are not re-entered as the test outcome; the test set is separate. No parameter is fit to the test labels and then renamed a prediction. The cited triage scale (Sands et al.) is used as a label source, not to justify the model's success, and even if one of its authors overlapped with the current team, that citation is not the warrant for the accuracy claim. The internal discrepancy between Table 4 and Table 7 class counts (209/250 vs 212/247) is an important reproducibility problem, but it concerns data reporting, not definitional circularity. The construct-validity point that clinician labels may encode voice-based judgments is a limitation of what the model measures, not a circular equation between input and output. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness import appears.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is incomplete because the paper does not disclose the model or its training configuration. The free parameters listed are the unseen hyperparameters and audio-processing choices. The axioms are standard supervised learning assumptions plus domain assumptions about triage label validity, independence of calls, and audio generalization. No invented physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the prototype is software, not a new entity.

free parameters (2)
  • Deep neural network hyperparameters = not reported
    Architecture, layer sizes, learning rate, optimizer, epochs, and regularization are not stated in Section 3.3, so the model that produced the confusion matrix cannot be reconstructed or audited.
  • Audio front-end and segmentation parameters = not reported
    The paper does not specify sample rate, window length, hop size, feature type, or how calls are chunked into audio segments. These choices materially affect classification performance and are set by the authors without disclosure.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The clinician-assigned triage labels (A-G) are accurate, reliable, and collapse cleanly into high and low priority.
    Section 3.1 and Table 2 use these labels as ground truth. If labels are noisy or inconsistent, the reported accuracy measures prediction of noisy labels rather than true risk.
  • domain assumption The 459 calls are independent and the train/test split does not leak information.
    Section 3.2 reports only counts in Table 4. There is no statement that callers do not appear in both splits, no deduplication logic, and no seed or leakage-control description.
  • domain assumption Voice audio contains stable, content-independent markers of distress that generalize across callers and recording conditions.
    This is the core motivating hypothesis in Sections 1 and 3.3. The paper does not validate it independently of the single dataset.
  • standard math Standard confusion-matrix definitions of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and balanced accuracy apply.
    Table 6 uses these standard formulas, but the reported balanced accuracy of 92% is inconsistent with sensitivity 92% and specificity 91%, which average to 91.5%.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Feasibility of Mental Health Triage Call Priority Prediction Using Machine Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/INEDDDAZ

@misc{pith2026241200057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Feasibility of Mental Health Triage Call Priority Prediction Using Machine Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/INEDDDAZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00057}
}
read the original abstract

Ensuring accurate call prioritisation is essential for optimising the efficiency and responsiveness of mental health helplines. Currently, call operators rely entirely on the caller's statements to determine the priority of the calls. It has been shown that entirely subjective assessment can lead to errors. Furthermore, it is a missed opportunity not to utilise the voice properties readily available during the call to aid in the evaluation. Incorrect prioritisation can result in delayed assistance for high-risk individuals, resource misallocation, increased mental health deterioration, loss of trust, and potential legal consequences. It is vital to address these risks to guarantee the reliability and effectiveness of mental health services. This study delves into the potential of using machine learning, a branch of Artificial Intelligence, to estimate call priority from the callers' voices for users of mental health phone helplines. After analysing 459 call records from a mental health helpline, we achieved a balanced accuracy of 92\%, showing promise in aiding the call operators' efficiency in call handling processes and improving customer satisfaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00057 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Application Interface 4 Discussion A significant challenge for clinicians conducting telephone triage is the absence of visual cues. Observation of facial expressions, body language and other behaviours are routinely part of a face-to-face assessment in mental health. Without this crucial element clinicians have an additional challenge in determining the care that should be provided to these callers. Clini￾cians mus… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A methodology for emergency calls severity prediction: from pre-processing to bert-based classifiers

    Marianne Abi Kanaan, Jean-Fran c ois Couchot, Christophe Guyeux, David Laiymani, Talar Atechian, and Rony Darazi. A methodology for emergency calls severity prediction: from pre-processing to bert-based classifiers. In IFIP international conference on artificial intelligence applications and innovations, pages 329--342. Springer, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Tayla Anthony, Amit Kumar Mishra, Willem Stassen, and Jarryd Son. The feasibility of using machine learning to classify calls to south african emergency dispatch centres according to prehospital diagnosis, by utilising caller descriptions of the incident. In Healthcare, volume 9, page 1107. MDPI, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Designing for control in nurse-ai collaboration during emergency medical calls

    Arngeir Berge, Frode Guribye, Siri-Linn Schmidt Fotland, Gro Fonnes, Ingrid H Johansen, and Christoph Trattner. Designing for control in nurse-ai collaboration during emergency medical calls. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pages 1339--1352, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Botha, R.W

    F. Botha, R.W. Morris, P. Butterworth, and N. Glozier. The kids are not alright: differential trends in mental ill-health in Australia. Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic and Social Research: The University of Melbourne, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Briggs, S

    H. Briggs, S. Clarke, and N. Rees. Mental health assessment and triage in an ambulance clinical contact centre. Journal of Paramedic Practice, 13 0 (5): 0 196--203, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Ambulance dispatch prioritisation for traffic crashes using machine learning: a natural language approach

    Ellen Ceklic, Stephen Ball, Judith Finn, Elizabeth Brown, Deon Brink, Paul Bailey, Austin Whiteside, Rudolph Brits, and Hideo Tohira. Ambulance dispatch prioritisation for traffic crashes using machine learning: a natural language approach. International journal of medical informatics, 168: 0 104886, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Leveraging graph neural networks for supporting automatic triage of patients

    Annamaria Defilippo, Pierangelo Veltri, Pietro Li \'o , and Pietro Hiram Guzzi. Leveraging graph neural networks for supporting automatic triage of patients. Scientific Reports, 14 0 (1): 0 12548, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Downey, L

    V. Downey, L. Zun, and T. Burke. Comparison of emergency nurses association emergency severity triage and australian emergency mental health triage systems for the evaluation of psychiatric patients. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 37 0 (1): 0 11--19, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Introduction to sentiment analysis: Prioritize tickets based on customer sentiments

    Freshworks. Introduction to sentiment analysis: Prioritize tickets based on customer sentiments. Available: https://support.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/50000009489-sentiment-analysis-prioritize-tickets-based-on-customer-sentiments, 2024. [Accessed Sept 6, 2024]

    2024

  2. [10]

    Understand sentiment analysis

    Genesis. Understand sentiment analysis. Available: https://help.mypurecloud.com/articles/understand-sentiment-analysis/, 2024. [Accessed Sept 6, 2024]

    2024

  3. [11]

    Holmström, E

    I. Holmström, E. Kaminsky, D. Spangler, and U. Winbald. Registered nurses' experiences of using a clinical decision support system for triage of emergency calls: A qualitative interview study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76 0 (11): 0 3104--3112, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Jahromi, H

    M. Jahromi, H. Ayatollahi, and A. Ebrazeh. Covid-19 hotlines, helplines and call centers: a systematic review of characteristics, challenges and lessons learned. BMC Public Health, 24: 0 1191, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Low, K.H

    D.M. Low, K.H. Bentley, and S.S. Ghosh. Automated assessment of psychiatric disorders using speech: A systematic review. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 5: 0 96--116, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Michel, A

    J. Michel, A. Manns, S. Boudersa, C. Jaubert, L. Dupic, B. Vivien, A. Burgun, F. Campeotto, and R. Tsopra. Clinical decision support system in emergency telephone triage: A scoping review of technical design, implementation and evaluation. International Journal of Medical Info...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Mittelstadt, C

    B. Mittelstadt, C. Russell, and S. Wachter. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical ai. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1 0 (11): 0 501--507, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Nguyen and P

    T.P. Nguyen and P. Solanki. Addressing the shortage of psychiatrists in australia: Strategies to improve recruitment among medical students and prevocational doctors. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 57: 0 161--163, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Palaniyappan

    L. Palaniyappan. More than a biomarker: could language be a biosocial marker of psychosis? npj Schizophrenia, 7 0 (1): 0 42, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Emotion analysis for online patient care using machine learning

    Rosa Perez-Siguas, Hernan Matta-Solis, Eduardo Matta-Solis, Luis Perez-Siguas, Hernan Matta-Perez, and Alejandro Cruzata-Martinez. Emotion analysis for online patient care using machine learning. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 30 0...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Perlini, A

    C. Perlini, A. Marini, M. Garzitto, M. Isola, S. Cerruti, V. Marinelli, G. Rambaldelli, A. Ferro, L. Tomelleri, N. Dusi, M. Bellani, M. Tansella, F. Fabbro, and P. Brambilla. Linguistic production and syntactic comprehension in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Acta Psychiat...

    2012

  12. [20]

    Sands, S

    N. Sands, S. Elsom, S. Keppich-Arnold, K. Henderson, P. King, K. Bourke-Finn, and D. Brunning. Investigating the validity and usability of an interactive computer programme for assessing competence in telephone-based mental health triage. International Journal of Mental Health...

    2001

  13. [21]

    Tanner, E

    R. Tanner, E. Cassidy, and I. O'Sullivan. Does using a standardised mental health triage assessment alter nurses assessment of vignettes of people presenting with deliberate self-harm. Advances in Emergency Medicine, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Thomas, A

    K. Thomas, A. Schroder, and D. Tickwood. A systematic review of current approaches to managing demand and waitlists for mental health services. Mental Health Review Journal, 25 0 (1): 0 80--86, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    D. Vigo, L. Jones, R. Atun, and G. Thornicroft. The true global disease burden of mental illness: still elusive. Lancet Psychiatry, 9: 0 98--100, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    sorry i didn’t hear you

    C. Villongco and F. Khan. “sorry i didn’t hear you.” the ethics of voice computing and ai in high risk mental health populations. AJOB Neuroscience, 11: 0 105--112, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Watson, R

    T. Watson, R. Tindall, A. Patrick, and S. Moylan. Mental health triage tools: A narrative review. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 32 0 (2): 0 352--364, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    The best customer service software for 2024

    Zendesk. The best customer service software for 2024. Available: https://www.zendesk.com/service/ticketing-system/customer-service-management-software/, 2024. [Accessed Sept 6, 2024]

    2024

  19. [27]

    Vigo, D., Jones, L., Atun, R., & Thornicroft, G. (2022). The true global disease burden of mental illness: still elusive. Lancet Psychiatry, 9, 98-100

    2022

  20. [28]

    Botha, F., Morris, R.W., Butterworth, P., & Glozier, N. (2021). The kids are not alright: differential trends in mental ill-health in Australia. Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic and Social Research: The University of Melbourne

    2021

  21. [29]

    Nguyen, T.P., & Solanki, P. (2021). Addressing the shortage of psychiatrists in Australia: Strategies to improve recruitment among medical students and prevocational doctors. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 57, 161-163

    2021

  22. [30]

    Sorry I Didn’t Hear You

    Villongco, C., & Khan, F. (2021). “Sorry I Didn’t Hear You.” The Ethics of Voice Computing and AI in High Risk Mental Health Populations. AJOB Neuroscience, 11, 105-112

    2021

  23. [31]

    & Brambilla, P

    Perlini, C., Marini, A., Garzitto, M., Isola, M., Cerruti, S., Marinelli, V., Rambaldelli, G., Ferro, A., Tomelleri, L., Dusi, N., Bellani, M., Tansella, M., Fabbro, F. & Brambilla, P. (2012). Linguistic production and syntactic comprehension in schizophrenia and bipolar disor...

    2012

  24. [32]

    Low, D.M., Bentley, K.H., & Ghosh, S.S. (2021). Automated assessment of psychiatric disorders using speech: A systematic review. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 5, 96-116

    2021

  25. [33]

    Jahromi, M., Ayatollahi, H., & Ebrazeh, A. (2024). Covid-19 hotlines, helplines and call centres: a systematic review of characteristics, challenges and lessons learned. BMC Public Health, 24, 1191

    2024

  26. [34]

    King, P., Bourke-Finn, K., & Brunning, D

    Sands, N., Elsom, S., Keppich-Arnold, S., Henderson, K,. King, P., Bourke-Finn, K., & Brunning, D. (2001). Investigating the validity and usability of an interactive computer programme for assessing competence in telephone-based mental health triage. International Journal of M...

    2001

  27. [35]

    Thomas, K., Schroder, A., & Tickwood, D. (2021). A systematic review of current approaches to managing demand and waitlists for mental health services. Mental Health Review Journal, 25(1), 80-86

    2021

  28. [36]

    Watson, T., Tindall, R., Patrick, A., & Moylan, S. (2022). Mental health triage tools: A narrative review. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 32(2), 352-364

    2022

  29. [37]

    Downey, V., Zun, L., & Burke, T. (2014). Comparison of Emergency Nurses Association Emergency Severity Triage and Australian Emergency Mental Health Triage Systems for the Evaluation of Psychiatric Patients. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 37(1), 11-19

    2014

  30. [38]

    Tanner, R., Cassidy, E., & O'Sullivan, I. (2014). Does Using a Standardised Mental Health Triage Assessment Alter Nurses Assessment of Vignettes of People Presenting with Deliberate Self-Harm. Advances in Emergency Medicine, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Briggs, H., Clarke, S., & Rees, N. (2011). Mental health assessment and triage in an ambulance clinical contact centre. Journal of Paramedic Practice, 13(5), 196-203

    2011

  32. [40]

    Holmström, I., Kaminsky, E., Spangler, D., & Winbald, U. (2011). Registered Nurses' experiences of using a clinical decision support system for triage of emergency calls: A qualitative interview study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(11), 3104-3112

    2011

  33. [41]

    Michel, J., Manns, A., Boudersa, S., Jaubert, C., Dupic, L., Vivien, B., Burgun, A., Campeotto, F., & Tsopra, R. (2024). Clinical decision support system in emergency telephone triage: A scoping review of technical design, implementation and evaluation. International Journal o...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Palaniyappan, L. (2011). More than a biomarker: could language be a biosocial marker of psychosis?. npj Schizophrenia, 7(1), 42

    2011

  35. [43]

    Bergstra, J., & Bengio, Y. (2012). Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(Feb), 281-305

    2012

  36. [44]

    Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5-32

    2001

  37. [45]

    Cavoukian, A. (2010). Privacy by design: The 7 foundational principles. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada

    2010

  38. [46]

    Chouldechova, A., & Roth, A. (2018). The frontiers of fairness in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08810

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Dean, J., & Ghemawat, S. (2008). MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. Communications of the ACM, 51(1), 107-113

    2008

  40. [48]

    Domingos, P., & Hulten, G. (2000). Mining high-speed data streams. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 71-80)

    2000

  41. [49]

    Fleury, A., Vacher, M., & Noury, N. (2015). SVM-based multimodal classification of activities of daily living in health smart homes: Sensors, algorithms, and first experimental results. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 14(2), 274-283

    2015

  42. [50]

    Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of Statistics, 1189-1232

    2001

  43. [51]

    R., & Pentland, A

    George, G., Haas, M. R., & Pentland, A. (2016). Big data and management. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1493-1507

    2016

  44. [52]

    right to explanation

    Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017). European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a" right to explanation". AI Magazine, 38(3), 50-57

    2017

  45. [53]

    Gans, N., Koole, G., & Mandelbaum, A. (2003). Telephone call centres: Tutorial, review, and research prospects. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 5(2), 79-141

    2003

  46. [54]

    Gupta, V., Kumar, A., & Sharma, R. (2019). Sentiment analysis for call center interactions using LSTM. Journal of Business Research, 101, 301-310

    2019

  47. [55]

    W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R

    Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied logistic regression (Vol. 398). John Wiley & Sons

    2013

  48. [56]

    B., Zhu, Q

    Huang, G. B., Zhu, Q. Y., & Siew, C. K. (2015). Extreme learning machine: theory and applications. Neurocomputing, 70(1-3), 489-501

    2015

  49. [57]

    A., & Qazi, S

    Hussain, S., Sheikh, A. A., & Qazi, S. (2018). A hybrid ANN and fuzzy logic approach for call center analytics. International Journal of Computer Applications, 179(22), 15-21

    2018

  50. [58]

    W., Kim, J

    Kim, S. W., Kim, J. H., & Lee, Y. J. (2017). Customer priority prediction using deep belief networks. Expert Systems with Applications, 90, 347-357

    2017

  51. [59]

    H., Park, J

    Lee, S. H., Park, J. H., & Lee, K. J. (2020). Predictive analytics for customer service quality in financial services call centres. Information Sciences, 527, 322-337

    2020

  52. [60]

    Li, X., Zhao, Y., & Li, W. (2020). Deep reinforcement learning for dynamic call center scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 50(3), 994-1006

    2020

  53. [61]

    Liu, Z., Wu, W., & Zhou, L. (2019). Predicting customer satisfaction in call centres using gradient boosting decision trees. IEEE Access, 7, 114081-114089

    2019

  54. [62]

    Louppe, G., Wehenkel, L., Sutera, A., & Geurts, P. (2013). Understanding variable importances in forests of randomized trees. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 431-439)

    2013

  55. [63]

    M., & Lee, S

    Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S. I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 4765-4774)

    2017

  56. [64]

    Mittelstadt, B., Russell, C., & Wachter, S. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11), 501-507

    2019

  57. [65]

    Rajaraman, V. (2018). Introduction to information technology. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd

    2018

  58. [66]

    Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 206-215

    2019

  59. [67]

    Schmidhuber, J. (2015). Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural Networks, 61, 85-117

    2015

  60. [68]

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., ... & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 5998-6008)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Wang, Y., Yu, J., & Luo, S. (2018). Speech emotion recognition based on convolutional neural network. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1069(1), 012104

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.