MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309223384 · doi:10.1177/2473011421s00743

Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Virtual Assessments vs In-Clinic Assessment in the Foot & Ankle Clinic

2022· article· en· W4309223384 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Johnny Lau, Tamara Gotal

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot & Ankle Orthopaedics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical diagnosisAnklePhysical therapyFoot (prosody)TelemedicinePatient satisfactionFamily medicineHealth careNursingSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Category: Basic Sciences/Biologics; Other Introduction/Purpose: Remote video consultations between clinicians and patients have been increasing in popularity3, and while there is a universal consensus that virtual assessments play an integral role in delivering health care to remote locations there has not been any longitudinal investigations into the diagnostic accuracy between virtual consultations and that of in-clinic assessments. Accordingly, our study aims to validate the diagnostic acuity of virtual consultation of patients in comparison to in- clinic assessments along with assessing the satisfaction that patients have experienced with their virtual assessments. Methods: The Foot & Ankle clinic at Toronto Western Hospital prospectively collected data via virtual video assessment of patients from March 2020 till April 2021. We retrospectively analyzed the diagnoses of virtual assessments vs. in-clinic assessments and whether there was a change in diagnosis from these visits. 582 patients were assessed via virtual video consultations of which we used the University Health Network Electronic Patient Records to compare the diagnoses documented in the consultation notes done virtually & the in-clinic notes. Along with this the satisfaction scores were populated for the 192 patients who answered the questionnaire. Satisfaction scores were weighted 0-5, of which 0 represented 'Not At All' and 5 represented 'Definitely'. Results: Analysis of the 582 virtual video consults resulted in 30% of those patients who required in-clinic examination. Assessing these patients, we found a diagnostic accuracy of 95%, with most of the virtual assessments having an appropriate diagnosis. We did nonetheless find that 10% of patients assessed in-clinic demonstrated additional pathology in conjunction with the pathology diagnosed virtually. Assessment of the satisfaction scores demonstrated that 78.6% of patients were satisfied (4/5 & 5/5) with the virtual assessment and 8.34% were not satisfied (1/5 & 0/5). Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that high diagnostic accuracy is attainable through virtual video assessments, thus making it an integral tool for delivery of health care to patients at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has created significant barriers. Given the constraints placed on our health care systems, this study also demonstrates that patients are satisfied with the virtual assessments conducted through the OTN system. [GT1] Additionally, the implications of such a tool provides benefits to reducing costs to health care systems and to patients who live in remote locations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.370 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoot & Ankle OrthopaedicsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207