Literature DB >> 20566275

Detecting 'wrong blood in tube' errors: Evaluation of a Bayesian network approach.

Jason N Doctor1, Greg Strylewicz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In an effort to address the problem of laboratory errors, we develop and evaluate a method to detect mismatched specimens from nationally collected blood laboratory data in two experiments.
METHODS: In Experiments 1 and 2 using blood labs from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and values derived from the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) respectively, a proportion of glucose and HbA1c specimens were randomly mismatched. A Bayesian network that encoded probabilistic relationships among analytes was used to predict mismatches. In Experiment 1 the performance of the network was compared against existing error detection software. In Experiment 2 the network was compared against 11 human experts recruited from the American Academy of Clinical Chemists. Results were compared via area under the receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUCs) and with agreement statistics.
RESULTS: In Experiment 1 the network was most predictive of mismatches that produced clinically significant discrepancies between true and mismatched scores ((AUC of 0.87 (±0.04) for HbA1c and 0.83 (±0.02) for glucose), performed well in identifying errors among those self-reporting diabetes (N=329) (AUC=0.79 (±0.02)) and performed significantly better than the established approach it was tested against (in all cases p<.0.05). In Experiment 2 it performed better (and in no case worse) than 7 of the 11 human experts. Average percent agreement was 0.79 and Kappa (κ) was 0.59, between experts and the Bayesian network.
CONCLUSIONS: Bayesian network can accurately identify mismatched specimens. The algorithm is best at identifying mismatches that result in a clinically significant magnitude of error.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20566275      PMCID: PMC2948617          DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2010.05.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Artif Intell Med        ISSN: 0933-3657            Impact factor:   5.326


  5 in total

1.  Evaluation of LabRespond, a new automated validation system for clinical laboratory test results.

Authors:  W P Oosterhuis; H J Ulenkate; H M Goldschmidt
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 8.327

Review 2.  Errors in laboratory medicine.

Authors:  Pierangelo Bonini; Mario Plebani; Ferruccio Ceriotti; Francesca Rubboli
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 8.327

3.  The Diabetes Prevention Program: baseline characteristics of the randomized cohort. The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 19.112

4.  Defining the relationship between plasma glucose and HbA(1c): analysis of glucose profiles and HbA(1c) in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial.

Authors:  Curt L Rohlfing; Hsiao-Mei Wiedmeyer; Randie R Little; Jack D England; Alethea Tennill; David E Goldstein
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 19.112

5.  Patient safety in the clinical laboratory: a longitudinal analysis of specimen identification errors.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Wagar; Lorraine Tamashiro; Bushra Yasin; Lee Hilborne; David A Bruckner
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 5.534

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.