A Data-Driven Algorithm to Recommend Initial Clinical Workup for Outpatient Specialty Referral: Algorithm Development and Validation Using Electronic Health Record Data and Expert Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Millions of people have limited access to specialty care. The problem is exacerbated by ineffective specialty visits due to incomplete prereferral workup, leading to delays in diagnosis and treatment. Existing processes to guide prereferral diagnostic workup are labor-intensive (ie, building a consensus guideline between primary care doctors and specialists) and require the availability of the specialists (ie, electronic consultation). OBJECTIVE: Using pediatric endocrinology as an example, we develop a recommender algorithm to anticipate patients' initial workup needs at the time of specialty referral and compare it to a reference benchmark using the most common workup orders. We also evaluate the clinical appropriateness of the algorithm recommendations. METHODS: Electronic health record data were extracted from 3424 pediatric patients with new outpatient endocrinology referrals at an academic institution from 2015 to 2020. Using item co-occurrence statistics, we predicted the initial workup orders that would be entered by specialists and assessed the recommender's performance in a holdout data set based on what the specialists actually ordered. We surveyed endocrinologists to assess the clinical appropriateness of the predicted orders and to understand the initial workup process. RESULTS: Specialists (n=12) indicated that <50% of new patient referrals arrive with complete initial workup for common referral reasons. The algorithm achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.95 (95% CI 0.95-0.96). Compared to a reference benchmark using the most common orders, precision and recall improved from 37% to 48% (P<.001) and from 27% to 39% (P<.001) for the top 4 recommendations, respectively. The top 4 recommendations generated for common referral conditions (abnormal thyroid studies, obesity, amenorrhea) were considered clinically appropriate the majority of the time by specialists surveyed and practice guidelines reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: An item association-based recommender algorithm can predict appropriate specialists' workup orders with high discriminatory accuracy. This could support future clinical decision support tools to increase effectiveness and access to specialty referrals. Our study demonstrates important first steps toward a data-driven paradigm for outpatient specialty consultation with a tier of automated recommendations that proactively enable initial workup that would otherwise be delayed by awaiting an in-person visit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".