MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4409701744 · doi:10.1093/ehjacc/zuaf044.230

Qualitative evaluation of clinician interaction with a machine learning algorithm for the assessment of patients with suspected acute heart failure in the emergency department

2025· article· en· W4409701744 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueEuropean Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueScientific Research and Technology
Établissements canadiensInstitute of Population and Public Health
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineEmergency departmentHeart failureEmergency medicineMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineAlgorithmInternal medicineNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) assays have not been consistently implemented in practice despite being recommended in clinical guidelines for the assessment of acute heart failure. CODE-HF is a clinical decision-support tool that applies machine learning and NT-proBNP as a continuous measure and selected simple objective clinical variables to improve the diagnostic performance of NT-proBNP for acute heart failure. Purpose In a qualitative study, we aimed to explore the acceptance, and barriers and facilitators that led to positive clinician engagement with CODE-HF when used to assess anonymised clinical cases. Methods Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted either face-to-face or by video call with 17 clinicians from different disciplines working in Emergency Departments at 3 hospitals. They were asked to review five anonymised clinical cases and ‘think aloud’ about how they would assess the patient, and their interpretation of the CODE-HF metrics. These include a score of 0-100 representing an individualised probability of acute heart failure, diagnostic metrics and a classification of low, intermediate or high probability of acute heart failure (Figure 1). Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and coded. Codes were mapped onto the four domains of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influences, facilitating conditions). Results Performance expectancy: Assessment could be improved using CODE-HF by facilitating objective communication between colleagues in a similar away to other widely used tools. The classification by probability score helped to reprioritise acute heart failure in cases where a diagnosis may have been missed. Effort expectancy: Statements relating to the positive or negative predictive value of a diagnosis of acute heart failure were viewed as useful information along with a visual traffic light system for the low-, intermediate- or high-probability categories. The absolute score was considered less useful to clinicians due to increased effort required for interpretation. Social influences: local and national guidelines carried the greatest weight of whether clinical decision support tools are used in practice, though respected research active colleagues and review on professional podcasts were also influential. Facilitating conditions: Access to a computer and clinical sample processing time were the only potential organisational issues identified as barriers. Clinicians were unanimous that clinical decision support tools provide supplementary information rather than replace clinical assessment which is central to the decision making process. Conclusion Clinicians reported that CODE-HF was a useful tool in the assessment of patients with breathlessness in the Emergency Department and identified the diagnostic metrics that were most helpful in guiding clinical decisions.CODE-HF display

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,750
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,311

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,389
Écart entre enseignants0,346 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle