Mostrar registro simples

dc.contributor.authorLucini, Filipe Rissieript_BR
dc.contributor.authorReis, Mateus Augusto dospt_BR
dc.contributor.authorSilveira, Giovani Jose Caetano dapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorFogliatto, Flavio Sansonpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorAnzanello, Michel Josépt_BR
dc.contributor.authorAndrioli, Giordanna Guerrapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorNicolaidis, Rafaelpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorBeltrame, Rafael Coimbra Ferreirapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorNeyeloff, Jeruza Lavanholipt_BR
dc.contributor.authorSchaan, Beatriz D'Agordpt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-28T04:31:37Zpt_BR
dc.date.issued2020pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/220309pt_BR
dc.description.abstractBackground: The recent literature reports promising results from using intelligent systems to support decision making in healthcare operations. Using these systems may lead to improved diagnostic and treatment protocols and to predict hospital bed demand. Predicting hospital bed demand in emergency department (ED) attendances could help resource allocation and reduce pressure on busy hospitals. However, there is still limited knowledge on whether intelligent systems can operate as fully autonomous, user-independent systems. Objective: Compare the performance of a computer-based algorithm and humans in predicting hospital bed demand (admissions and discharges) based on the initial SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan) records of the ED. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study that compared the performance of humans and machines in predicting hospital bed demand from an ED. It considered electronic medical records (EMR) of 9030 patients (230 used as a testing set, and hence evaluated both by humans and by an algorithm, and 8800 used as a training set exclusively by the algorithm) who visited the ED of a tertiary care and teaching public hospital located in Porto Alegre, Brazil between January and December 2014. The machine role was played by Support Vector Machine Classifier and the human prediction was performed by four ED physicians. Predictions were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: All graders achieved similar accuracies. The accuracy by AUROC for the testing set was 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.77–0.87], 0.80 (95% CI: 0.75–0.85), 0.76 (95% CI: 0.71–0.81) for novice physicians, machine, experienced physicians, respectively. Processing time per test EMR was 0.00812±0.0009 seconds. In contrast, novice physicians took on average 156.80 seconds per test EMR, while experienced physicians took on average 56.40 seconds per test EMR. Conclusions: Our data indicated that the system could predict patient admission or discharge states with 80% accuracy, which was similar the performance of novice and experienced physicians. These results suggested that the algorithm could operate as an autonomous and independent system to complete this task.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfpt_BR
dc.language.isoengpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofPLoS One. San Francisco. vol. 15, no. 8 (Aug. 2020), e0237937, 11 p.pt_BR
dc.rightsOpen Accessen
dc.subjectOcupação de leitospt_BR
dc.subjectPhysiciansen
dc.subjectCritical care and emergency medicineen
dc.subjectServiço hospitalar de emergênciapt_BR
dc.subjectPrevisõespt_BR
dc.subjectInpatientsen
dc.subjectMachine learning algorithmsen
dc.subjectAlgorithmsen
dc.subjectElectronic medical recordsen
dc.subjectSupport vector machinesen
dc.subjectHospitalsen
dc.titleMan vs. machine : predicting hospital bed demandpt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.nrb001123833pt_BR
dc.type.originEstrangeiropt_BR


Thumbnail
   

Este item está licenciado na Creative Commons License

Mostrar registro simples