help button home button JAMIA Bigger figures
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Long, W. J.
Right arrow Articles by Criscitiello, M. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Long, W. J.
Right arrow Articles by Criscitiello, M. G.

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol 1, 127-141, Copyright © 1994 by American Medical Informatics Association

ARTICLES

Evaluation of a new method for cardiovascular reasoning

WJ Long, S Naimi and MG Criscitiello
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, Cambridge 02139, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the accuracy of the detailed diagnostic reasoning of the Heart Failure Program incorporating a new mechanism to handle temporal relationships and severity constraints. DESIGN: Tools were developed to summarize diagnoses and automatically generate evaluation forms. Five expert cardiologists were asked to review the reasoning of the program, with two analyzing each case. Cases were gathered retrospectively for diversity and difficulty and 26 randomly selected cases were evaluated. The underlying issues were identified and classified. RESULTS: Both reviewers rated the first diagnosis correct in 25% of the cases and at least one rated it wrong in 10%. Analyzing the detailed reasoning, 137 issues were raised, about 5.3 per case. Of these, 53% were possible concerns raised by one reviewer. Of the 5.3 issues per case, 2.5 were attributable to controversies, misunderstandings, or mistakes; 1 was due to the overly simplistic representation of the summaries; and 1.8 were issues related to the program. CONCLUSION: Overall, the program is capable of providing high- quality detailed diagnostic hypotheses for complex cardiovascular cases. The results highlight several issues: 1) the difficulty of effectively summarizing hypotheses, 2) the nature of a physician's causal explanation, and 3) some problems in evaluating detailed diagnostic reasoning. The mistakes the program made imply that some additional refinement is needed but that the reasoning mechanisms developed can support the appropriate reasoning. The appropriate next step is a prospective evaluation addressing the program's usefulness.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
H. S. F. Fraser, W. J. Long, and S. Naimi
Evaluation of a Cardiac Diagnostic Program in a Typical Clinical Setting
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2003; 10(4): 373 - 381.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
G. Hripcsak and A. Wilcox
Reference Standards, Judges, and Comparison Subjects: Roles for Experts in Evaluating System Performance
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., January 1, 2002; 9(1): 1 - 15.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Medical Informatics Association.