MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309044101 · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2022.1016522

Decision-centered design of a clinical decision support system for acute management of pediatric congenital heart disease

2022· article· en· W4309044101 on OpenAlexafffund
Azadeh Assadi, Peter C. Laussen, Gabrielle Freire, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Patricia Trbovich

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Digital Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsNorth York General HospitalVector InstituteCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchCanadian Heart Research CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsClinical decision support systemDecision support systemMedical diagnosisPsychological interventionSketchR-CASTDecision aidsDecision analysisIntervention (counseling)MedicineDiseaseComputer scienceKey (lock)Medical emergencyBusiness decision mappingRisk analysis (engineering)Intensive care medicineArtificial intelligencePathologyNursingAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Children with congenital heart disease (CHD), have fragile hemodynamics and can deteriorate due to common childhood illnesses and the natural progression of their disease. During these acute periods of deterioration, these children often present to their local emergency departments (ED) where expertise in CHD is limited, and appropriate intervention is crucial to their survival. Previous studies identified that determining the appropriate intervention for CHD patients can be difficult for ED physicians, particularly since key components of effective decision making are not being met. Although key components of effective decision making for ED physicians have been identified, they have yet to be transformed into actionable guidance. We used decision centered design (DCD) to translate key components of decision making into decision requirements and associated design concepts, that we subsequently incorporated into a prototype clinical decision support system (CDSS). Methods: Using framework analysis, transcripts from Critical Decision Method interviews of CHD experts and ED physicians were inductively coded to identify key decision requirements for ED physicians that are currently not well supported, and their associated design concepts. A design workshop was held to refine the identified key decision requirements and design concepts as well as to sketch information that would satisfy the identified requirements. These were iteratively incorporated into a prototype CDSS. Results: , were identified. These requirements along with design concepts and information needs identified through the design workshop were incorporated into the CDSS prototype. Conclusion: We identified key decision requirements and associated design concepts, that informed the design of a CDSS to provide actionable guidance for ED physicians when managing CHD patients. Meeting ED physicians' decision components with a CDSS requires the translation of their key decision requirements in its design. If not, we risk creating designs that interfere with clinician performance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Digital HealthSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207