Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33956971›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Pharmacists' perceptions of a machine learning model for the identification of atypical medication orders.

Sophie-Camille Hogue, Flora Chen, Geneviève Brassard, Denis Lebel, Jean-François Bussières, Audrey Durand, Maxime Thibault

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Prediction of Prednisolone Dose Correction Using Machine Learning.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sophie-Camille HoguePharmacy Practice Research Unit and Department of Pharmacy, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Flora ChenPharmacy Practice Research Unit and Department of Pharmacy, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Geneviève BrassardPharmacy Practice Research Unit and Department of Pharmacy, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Denis LebelPharmacy Practice Research Unit and Department of Pharmacy, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Jean-François BussièresPharmacy Practice Research Unit and Department of Pharmacy, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Audrey DurandDepartment of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Maxime ThibaultPharmacy Practice Research Unit and Department of Pharmacy, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Medication ErrorsPharmacistsHumansMachine LearningPerceptionProspective Studiesclinicalclinical pharmacy information systemsdecision support systemshospital pharmaceutical servicesmachine learningmedical order entry systems

Identifiers

PMID33956971
PMCPMC8324239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.