Automating detection of diagnostic error of infectious diseases using machine learning

Le résumé fourni par la source

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.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.