MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406289511 · doi:10.2196/68436

Machine Learning Approach to Identifying Wrong-Site Surgeries Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Dataset: Development and Validation Study

2025· article· en· W4406289511 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuan-Hsin Chen, Ching-Hsuan Lin, Chiao-Hsin Fan, An Jim Long, Jeremiah Scholl, Yen-Pin Kao, Usman Iqbal, Yu‐Chuan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintMedicaidComputer scienceData scienceWorld Wide WebHealth careEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Wrong-site surgery (WSS) is a critical but preventable medical error, often resulting in severe patient harm and substantial financial costs. While protocols exist to reduce wrong-site surgery, underreporting and inconsistent documentation continue to contribute to its persistence. Machine learning (ML) models, which have shown success in detecting medication errors, may offer a solution by identifying unusual procedure-diagnosis combinations. This study investigated whether an ML approach can effectively adapt to detect surgical errors. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the transferability and effectiveness of an ML-based model for detecting inconsistencies within surgical documentation, particularly focusing on laterality discrepancies. METHODS: We used claims data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Limited Data Set (CMS-LDS) from 2017 to 2020, focusing on surgical procedures with documented laterality. We developed an adapted Association Outlier Pattern (AOP) ML model to identify uncommon procedure-diagnosis combinations, specifically targeting discrepancies in laterality. The model was trained on data from 2017 to 2019 and tested on 2020 orthopedic procedures, using ICD-10-PCS (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Procedure Coding System) codes to distinguish body part and laterality. Test cases were classified based on alignment between procedural and diagnostic laterality, with 2 key subgroups (right-left and left-right mismatches) identified for evaluation. Model performance was assessed by comparing precision-recall curves and accuracy against rule-based methods. RESULTS: The findings here included 346,382 claims, of which 2170 claims demonstrated with significant laterality discrepancies between procedures and diagnoses. Among patients with left-side procedures and right-side diagnoses (603/1106), 54.5% were confirmed as errors after clinical review. For right-side procedures with left-side diagnoses (541/1064), 50.8% were classified as errors. The AOP model identified 697 and 655 potentially unusual combinations in the left-right and right-left subgroups, respectively, with over 80% of these cases confirmed as errors following clinical review. Most confirmed errors involved discrepancies in laterality for the same body part, while nonerror cases typically involved general diagnoses without specified laterality. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation showed that the AOP model effectively detects inconsistencies between surgical procedures and diagnoses using CMS-LDS data. The AOP model outperformed traditional rule-based methods, offering higher accuracy in identifying errors. Moreover, the model's transferability from medication-disease associations to procedure-diagnosis verification highlights its broad applicability. By improving the precision of identifying laterality discrepancies, the AOP model can reduce surgical errors, particularly in orthopedic care. These findings suggest that the model enhances patient safety and has the potential to improve clinical decision-making and outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.219
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207