Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38848317›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2024

Automating detection of diagnostic error of infectious diseases using machine learning.

Kelly S Peterson, Alec B Chapman, Wathsala Widanagamaachchi, Jesse Sutton, Brennan Ochoa, Barbara E Jones, Vanessa Stevens, David C Classen, Makoto M Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Kelly S PetersonVeterans Health Administration, Office of Analytics and Performance Integration, Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7803-6984
Alec B ChapmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America.
Wathsala WidanagamaachchiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America.
Jesse SuttonVeterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Brennan OchoaRocky Mountain Infectious Diseases Specialists, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America.
Barbara E JonesVeterans Affairs Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America.
Vanessa StevensVeterans Health Administration, Office of Analytics and Performance Integration, Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States of America.
David C ClassenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America.
Makoto M JonesVeterans Health Administration, Office of Analytics and Performance Integration, Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic error, a cause of substantial morbidity and mortality, is largely discovered and evaluated through self-report and manual review, which is costly and not suitable to real-time intervention. Opportunities exist to leverage electronic health record data for automated detection of potential misdiagnosis, executed at scale and generalized across diseases. We propose a novel automated approach to identifying diagnostic divergence considering both diagnosis and risk of mortality. Our objective was to identify cases of emergency department infectious disease misdiagnoses by measuring the deviation between predicted diagnosis and documented diagnosis, weighted by mortality. Two machine learning models were trained for prediction of infectious disease and mortality using the first 24h of data. Charts were manually reviewed by clinicians to determine whether there could have been a more correct or timely diagnosis. The proposed approach was validated against manual reviews and compared using the Spearman rank correlation. We analyzed 6.5 million ED visits and over 700 million associated clinical features from over one hundred emergency departments. The testing set performances of the infectious disease (Macro F1 = 86.7, AUROC 90.6 to 94.7) and mortality model (Macro F1 = 97.6, AUROC 89.1 to 89.1) were in expected ranges. Human reviews and the proposed automated metric demonstrated positive correlations ranging from 0.231 to 0.358. The proposed approach for diagnostic deviation shows promise as a potential tool for clinicians to find diagnostic errors. Given the vast number of clinical features used in this analysis, further improvements likely need to either take greater account of data structure (what occurs before when) or involve natural language processing. Further work is needed to explain the potential reasons for divergence and to refine and validate the approach for implementation in real-world settings.

Identifiers

PMID38848317
PMCPMC11161023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.