Event Analysis for Automated Estimation of Absent and Persistent Medication Alerts: Novel Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Event analysis is a promising approach to estimate the acceptance of medication alerts issued by computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems with an integrated clinical decision support system (CDSS), particularly when alerts cannot be interactively confirmed in the CPOE-CDSS due to its system architecture. Medication documentation is then reviewed for documented evidence of alert acceptance, which can be a time-consuming process, especially when performed manually. Objective: We present a new automated event analysis approach, which was applied to a large data set generated in a CPOE-CDSS with passive, noninterruptive alerts. Methods: Medication and alert data generated over 3.5 months within the CPOE-CDSS at Heidelberg University Hospital were divided into 24-hour time intervals in which the alert display was correlated with associated prescription changes. Alerts were considered "persistent" if they were displayed in every consecutive 24-hour time interval due to a respective active prescription until patient discharge and were considered "absent" if they were no longer displayed during continuous prescriptions in the subsequent interval. Results: Overall, 1670 patient cases with 11,428 alerts were analyzed. Alerts were displayed for a median of 3 (IQR 1-7) consecutive 24-hour time intervals, with the shortest alerts displayed for drug-allergy interactions and the longest alerts displayed for potentially inappropriate medication for the elderly (PIM). Among the total 11,428 alerts, 56.1% (n=6413) became absent, most commonly among alerts for drug-drug interactions (1915/2366, 80.9%) and least commonly among PIM alerts (199/499, 39.9%). Conclusions: This new approach to estimate alert acceptance based on event analysis can be flexibly adapted to the automated evaluation of passive, noninterruptive alerts. This enables large data sets of longitudinal patient cases to be processed, allows for the derivation of the ratios of persistent and absent alerts, and facilitates the comparison and prospective monitoring of these alerts.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".