ArticleArXiv2023
Using Machine Learning to Develop Smart Reflex Testing Protocols.
Article in ArXiv, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Reflex testing protocols allow clinical laboratories to perform second line diagnostic tests on existing specimens based on the results of initially ordered tests. Reflex testing can support optimal clinical laboratory test ordering and diagnosis. In current clinical practice, reflex testing typically relies on simple "if-then" rules; however, this limits their scope since most test ordering decisions involve more complexity than a simple rule will allow. Here, using the analyte ferritin as an example, we propose an alternative machine learning-based approach to "smart" reflex testing with a wider scope and greater impact than traditional rule-based approaches. Methods: Using patient data, we developed a machine learning model to predict whether a patient getting CBC testing will also have ferritin testing ordered, consider applications of this model to "smart" reflex testing, and evaluate the model by comparing its performance to possible rule-based approaches. Results: Our underlying machine learning models performed moderately well in predicting ferritin test ordering and demonstrated greater suitability to reflex testing than rule-based approaches. Using chart review, we demonstrate that our model may improve ferritin test ordering. Finally, as a secondary goal, we demonstrate that ferritin test results are missing not at random (MNAR), a finding with implications for unbiased imputation of missing test results. Conclusions: Machine learning may provide a foundation for new types of reflex testing with enhanced benefits for clinical diagnosis and laboratory utilization management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36776825PMC9915755W4320507414What 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.