ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021
Pharmacists' perceptions of a machine learning model for the identification of atypical medication orders.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Using machine learning or deep learning models in a hospital setting to detect inappropriate prescriptions: a systematic review.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2024Pooled it
- Integration of artificial intelligence applications in clinical pharmacy services: A scoping review.Future healthcare journal · 2026Review
- Causal relationship between metabolic syndrome and gastric cancer: insights from comprehensive analysis and biomarker identification.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Allied Health Professionals' Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in the Clinical Setting: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Quality of interaction between clinicians and artificial intelligence systems. A systematic review.Future healthcare journal · 2024Review
- The use of artificial intelligence to optimize medication alerts generated by clinical decision support systems: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Article
- Prediction of Prednisolone Dose Correction Using Machine Learning.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2023Article
- Development and validation of a machine learning-based detection system to improve precision screening for medication errors in the neonatal intensive care unit.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Detecting Unusual Intravenous Infusion Alerting Patterns with Machine Learning Algorithms.Biomedical instrumentation & technology · 2022Article
- Overcoming barriers and enabling artificial intelligence adoption in allied health clinical practice: A qualitative study.Digital healthArticle
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study sought to assess the clinical performance of a machine learning model aiming to identify unusual medication orders. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study was conducted at CHU Sainte-Justine, Canada, from April to August 2020. An unsupervised machine learning model based on GANomaly and 2 baselines were trained to learn medication order patterns from 10 years of data. Clinical pharmacists dichotomously (typical or atypical) labeled orders and pharmacological profiles (patients' medication lists). Confusion matrices, areas under the precision-recall curve (AUPRs), and F1 scores were calculated.
resultsA total of 12 471 medication orders and 1356 profiles were labeled by 25 pharmacists. Medication order predictions showed a precision of 35%, recall (sensitivity) of 26%, and specificity of 97% as compared with pharmacist labels, with an AUPR of 0.25 and an F1 score of 0.30. Profile predictions showed a precision of 49%, recall of 75%, and specificity of 82%, with an AUPR of 0.60, and an F1 score of 0.59. The model performed better than the baselines. According to the pharmacists, the model was a useful screening tool, and 9 of 15 participants preferred predictions by medication, rather than by profile. DISCUSSION: Predictions for profiles had higher F1 scores and recall compared with medication order predictions. Although the performance was much better for profile predictions, pharmacists generally preferred medication order predictions.
conclusionsBased on the AUPR, this model showed better performance for the identification of atypical pharmacological profiles than for medication orders. Pharmacists considered the model a useful screening tool. Improving these predictions should be prioritized in future research to maximize clinical impact.
Indexed as
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.