RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Modeling physician variability to prioritize relevant medical record information
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.09.18.20197434
DO 10.1101/2020.09.18.20197434
A1 Tajgardoon, Mohammadamin
A1 Cooper, Gregory F
A1 King, Andrew J
A1 Clermont, Gilles
A1 Hochheiser, Harry
A1 Hauskrecht, Milos
A1 Sittig, Dean F
A1 Visweswaran, Shyam
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/20/2020.09.18.20197434.abstract
AB Objective Patient information can be retrieved more efficiently in electronic medical record (EMR) systems by using machine learning models that predict which information a physician will seek in a clinical context. However, information-seeking behavior varies across EMR users. To explicitly account for this variability, we derived hierarchical models and compared their performance to non-hierarchical models in identifying relevant patient information in intensive care unit (ICU) cases.Materials and Methods Critical care physicians reviewed ICU patient cases and selected data items relevant for presenting at morning rounds. Using patient EMR data as predictors, we derived hierarchical logistic regression (HLR) and standard logistic regression (LR) models to predict their relevance.Results In 73 pairs of HLR and LR models, the HLR models achieved an area under the ROC curve of 0.81, 95% CI [0.80, 0.82], which was statistically significantly higher than that of LR models (0.75, 95% CI [0.74-0.76]). Further, the HLR models achieved statistically significantly lower expected calibration error (0.07, 95% CI [0.06-0.08]) than LR models (0.16, 95% CI [0.14-0.17]).Discussion The physician reviewers demonstrated variability in selecting relevant data. Our results show that HLR models perform significantly better than LR models with respect to both discrimination and calibration. This is likely due to explicitly modeling physician-related variability.Conclusion Hierarchical models can yield better performance when there is physician-related variability as in the case of identifying relevant information in the EMR.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe research reported in this publication was supported by the National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01 LM012095, and a Provost Fellowship in Intelligent Systems at the University of Pittsburgh (awarded to M.T.).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:We did not recruit patients in this study. The patient electronic medical record (EMR) data that we used were captured or documented as part of routine clinical care. The EMR data were de-identified and the University of Pittsburgh IRB determined that the study constitutes non-human subjects research and waived the need for informed patient consent. The study was approved by the University of Pittsburgh IRB under protocol PRO14020588.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe dataset is not publicly available.