Sophie-Camille Hogue1, Flora Chen1, Geneviève Brassard1, Denis Lebel1, Jean-François Bussières1, Audrey Durand2,3, Maxime Thibault1. 1. Pharmacy Practice Research Unit and Department of Pharmacy, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. 3. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to assess the clinical performance of a machine learning model aiming to identify unusual medication orders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was conducted at CHU Sainte-Justine, Canada, from April to August 2020. An unsupervised machine learning model based on GANomaly and 2 baselines were trained to learn medication order patterns from 10 years of data. Clinical pharmacists dichotomously (typical or atypical) labeled orders and pharmacological profiles (patients' medication lists). Confusion matrices, areas under the precision-recall curve (AUPRs), and F1 scores were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 12 471 medication orders and 1356 profiles were labeled by 25 pharmacists. Medication order predictions showed a precision of 35%, recall (sensitivity) of 26%, and specificity of 97% as compared with pharmacist labels, with an AUPR of 0.25 and an F1 score of 0.30. Profile predictions showed a precision of 49%, recall of 75%, and specificity of 82%, with an AUPR of 0.60, and an F1 score of 0.59. The model performed better than the baselines. According to the pharmacists, the model was a useful screening tool, and 9 of 15 participants preferred predictions by medication, rather than by profile. DISCUSSION: Predictions for profiles had higher F1 scores and recall compared with medication order predictions. Although the performance was much better for profile predictions, pharmacists generally preferred medication order predictions. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the AUPR, this model showed better performance for the identification of atypical pharmacological profiles than for medication orders. Pharmacists considered the model a useful screening tool. Improving these predictions should be prioritized in future research to maximize clinical impact.
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to assess the clinical performance of a machine learning model aiming to identify unusual medication orders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was conducted at CHU Sainte-Justine, Canada, from April to August 2020. An unsupervised machine learning model based on GANomaly and 2 baselines were trained to learn medication order patterns from 10 years of data. Clinical pharmacists dichotomously (typical or atypical) labeled orders and pharmacological profiles (patients' medication lists). Confusion matrices, areas under the precision-recall curve (AUPRs), and F1 scores were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 12 471 medication orders and 1356 profiles were labeled by 25 pharmacists. Medication order predictions showed a precision of 35%, recall (sensitivity) of 26%, and specificity of 97% as compared with pharmacist labels, with an AUPR of 0.25 and an F1 score of 0.30. Profile predictions showed a precision of 49%, recall of 75%, and specificity of 82%, with an AUPR of 0.60, and an F1 score of 0.59. The model performed better than the baselines. According to the pharmacists, the model was a useful screening tool, and 9 of 15 participants preferred predictions by medication, rather than by profile. DISCUSSION: Predictions for profiles had higher F1 scores and recall compared with medication order predictions. Although the performance was much better for profile predictions, pharmacists generally preferred medication order predictions. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the AUPR, this model showed better performance for the identification of atypical pharmacological profiles than for medication orders. Pharmacists considered the model a useful screening tool. Improving these predictions should be prioritized in future research to maximize clinical impact.
Keywords:
clinical; clinical pharmacy information systems; decision support systems; hospital pharmaceutical services; machine learning; medical order entry systems
Authors: Sunny B Bhakta; A Carmine Colavecchia; Linda Haines; Divya Varkey; Kevin W Garey Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Seyedeh Neelufar Payrovnaziri; Zhaoyi Chen; Pablo Rengifo-Moreno; Tim Miller; Jiang Bian; Jonathan H Chen; Xiuwen Liu; Zhe He Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jonathan H Chen; Muthuraman Alagappan; Mary K Goldstein; Steven M Asch; Russ B Altman Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Scott D Nelson; Colin G Walsh; Casey A Olsen; Andrew J McLaughlin; Joseph R LeGrand; Nick Schutz; Thomas A Lasko Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Henrique D P Dos Santos; Ana Helena D P S Ulbrich; Vinicius Woloszyn; Renata Vieira Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 5.772