What is the suitability of clinical vignettes in benchmarking the performance of online symptom checkers? An audit study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Assess the suitability of clinical vignettes in benchmarking the performance of online symptom checkers (OSCs).Design
Observational study using a publicly available free OSC.Participants
Healthily OSC, which provided consultations in English, was used to record consultation outcomes from two lay and four expert inputters using 139 standardised patient vignettes. Each vignette included three diagnostic solutions and a triage recommendation in one of three categories of triage urgency. A panel of three independent general practitioners interpreted the vignettes to arrive at an alternative set of diagnostic and triage solutions. Both sets of diagnostic and triage solutions were consolidated to arrive at a final consolidated version for benchmarking.Main outcome measures
Six inputters simulated 834 standardised patient evaluations using Healthily OSC and recorded outputs (triage solution, signposting, and whether the correct diagnostic solution appeared first or within the first three differentials). We estimated Cohen's kappa to assess how interpretations by different inputters could lead to divergent OSC output even when using the same vignette or when compared with a separate panel of physicians.Results
There was moderate agreement on triage recommendation (kappa=0.48), and substantial agreement on consultation outcomes between all inputters (kappa=0.73). OSC performance improved significantly from baseline when compared against the final consolidated diagnostic and triage solution (p<0.001).Conclusions
Clinical vignettes are inherently limited in their utility to benchmark the diagnostic accuracy or triage safety of OSC. Real-world evidence studies involving real patients are recommended to benchmark the performance of OSC against a panel of physicians.
SUBMITTER: El-Osta A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9047920 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
What is the suitability of clinical vignettes in benchmarking the performance of online symptom checkers? An audit study.
El-Osta Austen A Webber Iman I Alaa Aos A Bagkeris Emmanouil E Mian Saba S Taghavi Azar Sharabiani Mansour M Majeed Azeem A
BMJ open 20220427 4
<h4>Objective</h4>Assess the suitability of clinical vignettes in benchmarking the performance of online symptom checkers (OSCs).<h4>Design</h4>Observational study using a publicly available free OSC.<h4>Participants</h4>Healthily OSC, which provided consultations in English, was used to record consultation outcomes from two lay and four expert inputters using 139 standardised patient vignettes. Each vignette included three diagnostic solutions and a triage recommendation in one of three categor ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe burden on healthcare systems is mounting continuously owing to population growth and aging, overuse of medical services, and the recent COVID-19 pandemic. This overload is also causing reduced healthcare quality and outcomes. One solution gaining momentum is the integration of intelligent self-assessment tools, known as symptom-checkers, into healthcare-providers' systems. To the best of our knowledge, no study so far has investigated the data-gathering capabilities of these tools, which represent a crucial resource for simulating doctors' skills in medical-interviews.ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to evaluate the data-gathering function of currently available chatbot symptom-checkers.MethodsWe evaluated 8 symptom-checkers using 28 clinical vignettes from the repository of MSD-Manual case studies. The mean number of predefined pertinent findings for each case was 31.8 ± 6.8. The vignettes were entered into the platforms by 3 medical students who simulated the role of the patient. For each conversation, we obtained the number of pertinent findings retrieved and the number of questions asked. We then calculated the recall-rates (pertinent-findings retrieved out of all predefined pertinent-findings), and efficiency-rates (pertinent-findings retrieved out of the number of questions asked) of data-gathering, and compared them between the platforms.ResultsThe overall recall rate for all symptom-checkers was 0.32(2,280/7,112;95 %CI 0.31-0.33) for all pertinent findings, 0.37(1,110/2,992;95 %CI 0.35-0.39) for present findings, and 0.28(1140/4120;95 %CI 0.26-0.29) for absent findings. Among the symptom-checkers, Kahun platform had the highest recall rate with 0.51(450/889;95 %CI 0.47-0.54). Out of 4,877 questions asked overall, 2,280 findings were gathered, yielding an efficiency rate of 0.46(95 %CI 0.45-0.48) across all platforms. Kahun was the most efficient tool 0.74 (95 %CI 0.70-0.77) without a statistically significant difference from Your.MD 0.69(95 %CI 0.65-0.73).ConclusionThe data-gathering performance of currently available symptom checkers is questionable. From among the tools available, Kahun demonstrated the best overall performance.
| S-EPMC9595333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe development of machine learning models for symptom-based health checkers is a rapidly evolving area with significant implications for healthcare. Accurate and efficient diagnostic tools can enhance patient outcomes and optimize healthcare resources. This study focuses on evaluating and optimizing machine learning models using a dataset of 10 diseases and 9,572 samples.MethodsThe dataset was divided into training and testing sets to facilitate model training and evaluation. The following models were selected and optimized: Decision Tree, Random Forest, Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression and K-Nearest Neighbors. Evaluation metrics included accuracy, F1 scores, and 10-fold cross-validation. ROC-AUC and precision-recall curves were also utilized to assess model performance, particularly in scenarios with imbalanced datasets. Clinical vignettes were employed to gauge the real-world applicability of the models.ResultsThe performance of the models was evaluated using accuracy, F1 scores, and 10-fold cross-validation. The use of ROC-AUC curves revealed that model performance improved with increasing complexity. Precision-recall curves were particularly useful in evaluating model sensitivity in imbalanced dataset scenarios. Clinical vignettes demonstrated the robustness of the models in providing accurate diagnoses.DiscussionThe study underscores the importance of comprehensive model evaluation techniques. The use of clinical vignette testing and analysis of ROC-AUC and precision-recall curves are crucial in ensuring the reliability and sensitivity of symptom-based health checkers. These techniques provide a more nuanced understanding of model performance and highlight areas for further improvement.ConclusionThis study highlights the significance of employing diverse evaluation metrics and methods to ensure the robustness and accuracy of machine learning models in symptom-based health checkers. The integration of clinical vignettes and the analysis of ROC-AUC and precision-recall curves are essential steps in developing reliable and sensitive diagnostic tools.
| S-EPMC11483353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedical self-diagnostic tools (or symptom checkers) are becoming an integral part of digital health and our daily lives, whereby patients are increasingly using them to identify the underlying causes of their symptoms. As such, it is essential to rigorously investigate and comprehensively report the diagnostic performance of symptom checkers using standard clinical and scientific approaches.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate and report the accuracies of a few known and new symptom checkers using a standard and transparent methodology, which allows the scientific community to cross-validate and reproduce the reported results, a step much needed in health informatics.MethodsWe propose a 4-stage experimentation methodology that capitalizes on the standard clinical vignette approach to evaluate 6 symptom checkers. To this end, we developed and peer-reviewed 400 vignettes, each approved by at least 5 out of 7 independent and experienced primary care physicians. To establish a frame of reference and interpret the results of symptom checkers accordingly, we further compared the best-performing symptom checker against 3 primary care physicians with an average experience of 16.6 (SD 9.42) years. To measure accuracy, we used 7 standard metrics, including M1 as a measure of a symptom checker's or a physician's ability to return a vignette's main diagnosis at the top of their differential list, F1-score as a trade-off measure between recall and precision, and Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG) as a measure of a differential list's ranking quality, among others.ResultsThe diagnostic accuracies of the 6 tested symptom checkers vary significantly. For instance, the differences in the M1, F1-score, and NDCG results between the best-performing and worst-performing symptom checkers or ranges were 65.3%, 39.2%, and 74.2%, respectively. The same was observed among the participating human physicians, whereby the M1, F1-score, and NDCG ranges were 22.8%, 15.3%, and 21.3%, respectively. When compared against each other, physicians outperformed the best-performing symptom checker by an average of 1.2% using F1-score, whereas the best-performing symptom checker outperformed physicians by averages of 10.2% and 25.1% using M1 and NDCG, respectively.ConclusionsThe performance variation between symptom checkers is substantial, suggesting that symptom checkers cannot be treated as a single entity. On a different note, the best-performing symptom checker was an artificial intelligence (AI)-based one, shedding light on the promise of AI in improving the diagnostic capabilities of symptom checkers, especially as AI keeps advancing exponentially.
| S-EPMC11091811 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic and triage accuracy of online symptom checkers (tools that use computer algorithms to help patients with self diagnosis or self triage).DesignAudit study.SettingPublicly available, free symptom checkers.Participants23 symptom checkers that were in English and provided advice across a range of conditions. 45 standardized patient vignettes were compiled and equally divided into three categories of triage urgency: emergent care required (for example, pulmonary embolism), non-emergent care reasonable (for example, otitis media), and self care reasonable (for example, viral upper respiratory tract infection).Main outcome measuresFor symptom checkers that provided a diagnosis, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker listed the correct diagnosis first or within the first 20 potential diagnoses (n=770 standardized patient evaluations). For symptom checkers that provided a triage recommendation, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker correctly recommended emergent care, non-emergent care, or self care (n=532 standardized patient evaluations).ResultsThe 23 symptom checkers provided the correct diagnosis first in 34% (95% confidence interval 31% to 37%) of standardized patient evaluations, listed the correct diagnosis within the top 20 diagnoses given in 58% (55% to 62%) of standardized patient evaluations, and provided the appropriate triage advice in 57% (52% to 61%) of standardized patient evaluations. Triage performance varied by urgency of condition, with appropriate triage advice provided in 80% (95% confidence interval 75% to 86%) of emergent cases, 55% (47% to 63%) of non-emergent cases, and 33% (26% to 40%) of self care cases (P<0.001). Performance on appropriate triage advice across the 23 individual symptom checkers ranged from 33% (95% confidence interval 19% to 48%) to 78% (64% to 91%) of standardized patient evaluations.ConclusionsSymptom checkers had deficits in both triage and diagnosis. Triage advice from symptom checkers is generally risk averse, encouraging users to seek care for conditions where self care is reasonable.
| S-EPMC4496786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSymptom checkers (SCs) are tools developed to provide clinical decision support to laypersons. Apart from suggesting probable diagnoses, they commonly advise when users should seek care (triage advice). SCs have become increasingly popular despite prior studies rating their performance as mediocre. To date, it is unclear whether SCs can triage better than those who might choose to use them.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare triage accuracy between SCs and their potential users (ie, laypersons).MethodsOn Amazon Mechanical Turk, we recruited 91 adults from the United States who had no professional medical background. In a web-based survey, the participants evaluated 45 fictitious clinical case vignettes. Data for 15 SCs that had processed the same vignettes were obtained from a previous study. As main outcome measures, we assessed the accuracy of the triage assessments made by participants and SCs for each of the three triage levels (ie, emergency care, nonemergency care, self-care) and overall, the proportion of participants outperforming each SC in terms of accuracy, and the risk aversion of participants and SCs by comparing the proportion of cases that were overtriaged.ResultsThe mean overall triage accuracy was similar for participants (60.9%, SD 6.8%; 95% CI 59.5%-62.3%) and SCs (58%, SD 12.8%). Most participants outperformed all but 5 SCs. On average, SCs more reliably detected emergencies (80.6%, SD 17.9%) than laypersons did (67.5%, SD 16.4%; 95% CI 64.1%-70.8%). Although both SCs and participants struggled with cases requiring self-care (the least urgent triage category), SCs more often wrongly classified these cases as emergencies (43/174, 24.7%) compared with laypersons (56/1365, 4.10%).ConclusionsMost SCs had no greater triage capability than an average layperson, although the triage accuracy of the five best SCs was superior to the accuracy of most participants. SCs might improve early detection of emergencies but might also needlessly increase resource utilization in health care. Laypersons sometimes require support in deciding when to rely on self-care but it is in that very situation where SCs perform the worst. Further research is needed to determine how to best combine the strengths of humans and SCs.
| S-EPMC7991983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the context of a deepening global shortage of health workers and, in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic, there is growing international interest in, and use of, online symptom checkers (OSCs). However, the evidence surrounding the triage and diagnostic accuracy of these tools remains inconclusive.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to summarize the existing peer-reviewed literature evaluating the triage accuracy (directing users to appropriate services based on their presenting symptoms) and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs aimed at lay users for general health concerns.MethodsSearches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), and Web of Science, as well as the citations of the studies selected for full-text screening. We included peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 1, 2010, and February 16, 2022, with a controlled and quantitative assessment of either or both triage and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs directed at lay users. We excluded tools supporting health care professionals, as well as disease- or specialty-specific OSCs. Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by 2 reviewers for each study. We performed a descriptive narrative synthesis.ResultsA total of 21,296 studies were identified, of which 14 (0.07%) were included. The included studies used clinical vignettes, medical records, or direct input by patients. Of the 14 studies, 6 (43%) reported on triage and diagnostic accuracy, 7 (50%) focused on triage accuracy, and 1 (7%) focused on diagnostic accuracy. These outcomes were assessed based on the diagnostic and triage recommendations attached to the vignette in the case of vignette studies or on those provided by nurses or general practitioners, including through face-to-face and telephone consultations. Both diagnostic accuracy and triage accuracy varied greatly among OSCs. Overall diagnostic accuracy was deemed to be low and was almost always lower than that of the comparator. Similarly, most of the studies (9/13, 69 %) showed suboptimal triage accuracy overall, with a few exceptions (4/13, 31%). The main variables affecting the levels of diagnostic and triage accuracy were the severity and urgency of the condition, the use of artificial intelligence algorithms, and demographic questions. However, the impact of each variable differed across tools and studies, making it difficult to draw any solid conclusions. All included studies had at least one area with unclear risk of bias according to the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.ConclusionsAlthough OSCs have potential to provide accessible and accurate health advice and triage recommendations to users, more research is needed to validate their triage and diagnostic accuracy before widescale adoption in community and health care settings. Future studies should aim to use a common methodology and agreed standard for evaluation to facilitate objective benchmarking and validation.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020215210; https://tinyurl.com/3949zw83.
| S-EPMC10276326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aims of our study are firstly to investigate the diagnostic and triage performance of symptom checkers, secondly to assess their potential impact on healthcare utilisation and thirdly to investigate for variation in performance between systems.SettingPublicly available symptom checkers for patient use.ParticipantsPublicly available symptom-checkers were identified. A standardised set of 50 clinical vignettes were developed and systematically run through each system by a non-clinical researcher.Primary and secondary outcome measuresSystem accuracy was assessed by measuring the percentage of times the correct diagnosis was a) listed first, b) within the top five diagnoses listed and c) listed at all. The safety of the disposition advice was assessed by comparing it with national guidelines for each vignette.ResultsTwelve tools were identified and included. Mean diagnostic accuracy of the systems was poor, with the correct diagnosis being present in the top five diagnoses on 51.0% (Range 22.2 to 84.0%). Safety of disposition advice decreased with condition urgency (being 71.8% for emergency cases vs 87.3% for non-urgent cases). 51.0% of systems suggested additional resource utilisation above that recommended by national guidelines (range 18.0% to 61.2%). Both diagnostic accuracy and appropriate resource recommendation varied substantially between systems.ConclusionsThere is wide variation in performance between available symptom checkers and overall performance is significantly below what would be accepted in any other medical field, though some do achieve a good level of accuracy and safety of disposition. External validation and regulation are urgently required to ensure these public facing tools are safe.
| S-EPMC8282353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Online symptom checkers are increasingly popular health technologies that enable patients to input their symptoms to produce diagnoses and triage advice. However, there is concern regarding the performance and safety of symptom checkers in diagnosing and triaging patients with life-threatening conditions. This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate and compare commercially available symptom checkers for performance in diagnosing and triaging myocardial infarctions (MI). Symptoms and biodata of MI patients were inputted into 8 symptom checkers identified through a systematic search. Anonymised clinical data of 100 consecutive MI patients were collected from a tertiary coronary intervention centre between 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020. Outcomes included (1) diagnostic sensitivity as defined by symptom checkers outputting MI as the primary diagnosis (D1), or one of the top three (D3), or top five diagnoses (D5); and (2) triage sensitivity as defined by symptom checkers outputting urgent treatment recommendations. Overall D1 sensitivity was 48±31% and varied between symptom checkers (range: 6-85%). Overall D3 and D5 sensitivity were 73±20% (34-92%) and 79±14% (63-94%), respectively. Overall triage sensitivity was 83±13% (55-91%). 24±16% of atypical cases had a correct D1 though for female atypical cases D1 sensitivity was only 10%. Atypical MI D3 and D5 sensitivity were 44±21% and 48±24% respectively and were significantly lower than typical MI cases (p<0.01). Atypical MI triage sensitivity was significantly lower than typical cases (53±20% versus 84±15%, p<0.01). Female atypical cases had significantly lower diagnostic and triage sensitivity than typical female MI cases (p<0.01).Given the severity of the pathology, the diagnostic performance of symptom checkers for correctly diagnosing an MI is concerningly low. Moreover, there is considerable inter-symptom checker performance variation. Patients presenting with atypical symptoms were under-diagnosed and under-triaged, especially if female. This study highlights the need for improved clinical performance, equity and transparency associated with these technologies.
| S-EPMC11299816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe popularity of eHealth services has surged significantly, underscoring the importance of ensuring their usability and accessibility for users with diverse needs, characteristics, and capabilities. These services can pose cognitive demands, especially for individuals who are unwell, fatigued, or experiencing distress. Additionally, numerous potentially vulnerable groups, including older adults, are susceptible to digital exclusion and may encounter cognitive limitations related to perception, attention, memory, and language comprehension. Regrettably, many studies overlook the preferences and needs of user groups likely to encounter challenges associated with these cognitive aspects.ObjectiveThis study primarily aims to gain a deeper understanding of cognitive accessibility in the practical context of eHealth services. Additionally, we aimed to identify the specific challenges that vulnerable groups encounter when using eHealth services and determine key considerations for testing these services with such groups.MethodsAs a case study of eHealth services, we conducted qualitative usability testing on 2 online symptom checkers used in Finnish public primary care. A total of 13 participants from 3 distinct groups participated in the study: older adults, individuals with mild intellectual disabilities, and nonnative Finnish speakers. The primary research methods used were the thinking-aloud method, questionnaires, and semistructured interviews.ResultsWe found that potentially vulnerable groups encountered numerous issues with the tested services, with similar problems observed across all 3 groups. Specifically, clarity and the use of terminology posed significant challenges. The services overwhelmed users with excessive information and choices, while the terminology consisted of numerous complex medical terms that were difficult to understand. When conducting tests with vulnerable groups, it is crucial to carefully plan the sessions to avoid being overly lengthy, as these users often require more time to complete tasks. Additionally, testing with vulnerable groups proved to be quite efficient, with results likely to benefit a wider audience as well.ConclusionsBased on the findings of this study, it is evident that older adults, individuals with mild intellectual disability, and nonnative speakers may encounter cognitive challenges when using eHealth services, which can impede or slow down their use and make the services more difficult to navigate. In the worst-case scenario, these challenges may lead to errors in using the services. We recommend expanding the scope of testing to include a broader range of eHealth services with vulnerable groups, incorporating users with diverse characteristics and capabilities who are likely to encounter difficulties in cognitive accessibility.
| S-EPMC10960212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBenchmarking the performance of complex analytical pipelines is an essential part of developing Lab Developed Tests (LDT). Reference samples and benchmark calls published by Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) consortium have enabled the evaluation of analytical methods. The performance of such methods is not uniform across the different genomic regions of interest and variant types. Several benchmarking methods such as hap.py, vcfeval, and vcflib are available to assess the analytical performance characteristics of variant calling algorithms. However, assessing the performance characteristics of an overall LDT assay still requires stringing together several such methods and experienced bioinformaticians to interpret the results. In addition, these methods are dependent on the hardware, operating system and other software libraries, making it impossible to reliably repeat the analytical assessment, when any of the underlying dependencies change in the assay. Here we present a scalable and reproducible, cloud-based benchmarking workflow that is independent of the laboratory and the technician executing the workflow, or the underlying compute hardware used to rapidly and continually assess the performance of LDT assays, across their regions of interest and reportable range, using a broad set of benchmarking samples.ResultsThe benchmarking workflow was used to evaluate the performance characteristics for secondary analysis pipelines commonly used by Clinical Genomics laboratories in their LDT assays such as the GATK HaplotypeCaller v3.7 and the SpeedSeq workflow based on FreeBayes v0.9.10. Five reference sample truth sets generated by Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) consortium, six samples from the Personal Genome Project (PGP) and several samples with validated clinically relevant variants from the Centers for Disease Control were used in this work. The performance characteristics were evaluated and compared for multiple reportable ranges, such as whole exome and the clinical exome.ConclusionsWe have implemented a benchmarking workflow for clinical diagnostic laboratories that generates metrics such as specificity, precision and sensitivity for germline SNPs and InDels within a reportable range using whole exome or genome sequencing data. Combining these benchmarking results with validation using known variants of clinical significance in publicly available cell lines, we were able to establish the performance of variant calling pipelines in a clinical setting.
| S-EPMC7903625 | biostudies-literature