» Articles » PMID: 34674415

Automated Identification of Diagnostic Labelling Errors in Medicine

Overview
Publisher De Gruyter
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2021 Oct 21
PMID 34674415
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: Identification of diagnostic error is complex and mostly relies on expert ratings, a severely limited procedure. We developed a system that allows to automatically identify diagnostic labelling error from diagnoses coded according to the international classification of diseases (ICD), often available as routine health care data.

Methods: The system developed (index test) was validated against rater based classifications taken from three previous studies of diagnostic labeling error (reference standard). The system compares pairs of diagnoses through calculation of their distance within the ICD taxonomy. Calculation is based on four different algorithms. To assess the concordance between index test and reference standard, we calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) and corresponding confidence intervals. Analysis were conducted overall and separately per algorithm and type of available dataset.

Results: Diagnoses of 1,127 cases were analyzed. Raters previously classified 24.58% of cases as diagnostic labelling errors (ranging from 12.3 to 87.2% in the three datasets). AUROC ranged between 0.821 and 0.837 overall, depending on the algorithm used to calculate the index test (95% CIs ranging from 0.8 to 0.86). Analyzed per type of dataset separately, the highest AUROC was 0.924 (95% CI 0.887-0.962).

Conclusions: The trigger system to automatically identify diagnostic labeling error from routine health care data performs excellent, and is unaffected by the reference standards' limitations. It is however only applicable to cases with pairs of diagnoses, of which one must be more accurate or otherwise superior than the other, reflecting a prevalent definition of a diagnostic labeling error.

Citing Articles

Effects of interacting with a large language model compared with a human coach on the clinical diagnostic process and outcomes among fourth-year medical students: study protocol for a prospective, randomised experiment using patient vignettes.

Kammer J, Hautz W, Krummrey G, Sauter T, Penders D, Birrenbach T BMJ Open. 2024; 14(7):e087469.

PMID: 39025818 PMC: 11261684. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087469.

References
1.
Bastakoti M, Muhailan M, Nassar A, Sallam T, Desale S, Fouda R . Discrepancy between emergency department admission diagnosis and hospital discharge diagnosis and its impact on length of stay, up-triage to the intensive care unit, and mortality. Diagnosis (Berl). 2021; 9(1):107-114. DOI: 10.1515/dx-2021-0001. View

2.
Murphy D, Meyer A, Sittig D, Meeks D, Thomas E, Singh H . Application of electronic trigger tools to identify targets for improving diagnostic safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018; 28(2):151-159. PMC: 6365920. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008086. View

3.
Riches N, Panagioti M, Alam R, Cheraghi-Sohi S, Campbell S, Esmail A . The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2016; 11(3):e0148991. PMC: 4782994. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148991. View

4.
Weeks W, Foster T, Wallace A, Stalhandske E . Tort claims analysis in the Veterans Health Administration for quality improvement. J Law Med Ethics. 2002; 29(3-4):335-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2001.tb00352.x. View

5.
Kunina-Habenicht O, Hautz W, Knigge M, Spies C, Ahlers O . Assessing clinical reasoning (ASCLIRE): Instrument development and validation. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015; 20(5):1205-24. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-015-9596-y. View