Assessing subsets of analytes in context of detecting laboratory errors.

Laboratory error detection is a hard task yet plays an important role in efficient care of the patients. Quality controls are inadequate in detecting pre-analytic errors and are not frequent enough. Hence population- and patient-based detectors are developed. However, it is not clear what set of analytes leads to the most efficient error detectors. Here, we use three different scoring functions that can be used in detecting errors, to rank a set of analytes in terms of their strength in distinguishing erroneous measurements. We also observe that using evaluations of larger subsets of analytes in our analysis does not necessarily lead to a more accurate error detector. In our data set obtained from renal kidney disease inpatients, calcium, potassium, and sodium, emerged as the top-3 indicators of an erroneous measurement. Using the joint likelihood of these three analytes, we obtain an estimated AUC of 0.73 in error detection.