Computerised clinical decision support system for the diagnosis of pulmonary thromboembolism: a preclinical pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recommendations for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism are available for healthcare providers. Yet, real practice data show existing gaps in the translation of evidence-based recommendations. This is a study to assess the effect of a computerised decision support system (CDSS) with an enhanced design based on best practices in content and reasoning representation for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. DESIGN: Randomised preclinical pilot study of paper-based clinical scenarios in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Participants were clinicians (n=30) from three levels of experience: medical students, residents and physicians. Participants were randomised to two interventions for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a didactic lecture versus a decision tree via a CDSS. The primary outcome of diagnostic pathway concordance (derived as a ratio of the number of correct diagnostic decision steps divided by the ideal number of diagnostic decision steps in diagnostic algorithms) was measured at baseline (five clinical scenarios) and after either intervention for a total of 10 clinical scenarios. RESULTS: The mean of diagnostic pathway concordance improved in both study groups: baseline mean=0.73, post mean for the CDSS group=0.90 (p<0.001, 95% CI 0.10-0.24); baseline mean=0.71, post mean for didactic lecture group=0.85 (p<0.001, 95% CI 0.07-0.2). There was no statistically significant difference between the two study groups or between the three levels of participants. INTERPRETATION: A computerised decision support system designed for both content and reasoning visualisation can improve clinicians' diagnostic decision-making.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".