ArticleMethods of information in medicine2023
Machine Learning Classification of Psychiatric Data Associated with Compensation Claims for Patient Injuries.
Article in Methods of information in medicine, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdverse events are common in health care. In psychiatric treatment, compensation claims for patient injuries appear to be less common than in other medical specialties. The most common types of patient injury claims in psychiatry include diagnostic flaws, unprevented suicide, or coercive treatment deemed as unnecessary or harmful.
objectivesThe objective was to study whether it is possible to form different categories of patient injury types associated with the psychiatric evaluations of compensation claims and to base machine learning classification on these categories. Further, the binary classification of positive and negative decisions for compensation claims was the other objective.
methodsFinnish psychiatric specialist evaluations for the compensation claims of patient injuries were classified into six different categories called classes applying the machine learning methods of artificial intelligence. In addition, another classification of the same data into two classes was performed to test whether it was possible to classify data cases according to their known decisions, either accepted or declined compensation claim.
resultsThe former classification task produced relatively good classification results subject to separating between different classes. Instead, the latter was more complex. However, classification accuracies of both tasks could be improved by using the generation of artificial data cases in the preprocessing phase before classifications. This preprocessing improved the classification accuracy of six classes up to 88% when the method of random forests was used for classification and that of the binary classification to 89%.
conclusionThe results show that the objectives defined were possible to solve reasonably.
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.