Chapman Wendy W, Dowling John N, Wagner Michael M
Center for Biomedical Informatics, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Nov;46(5):445-55. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.04.012. Epub 2005 Jul 14.
Electronic surveillance systems often monitor triage chief complaints in hopes of detecting an outbreak earlier than can be accomplished with traditional reporting methods. We measured the accuracy of a Bayesian chief complaint classifier called CoCo that assigns patients 1 of 7 syndromic categories (respiratory, botulinic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, rash, constitutional, or hemorrhagic) based on free-text triage chief complaints.
We compared CoCo's classifications with criterion syndromic classification based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) discharge diagnoses. We assigned the criterion classification to a patient based on whether the patient's primary diagnosis was a member of a set of ICD-9 codes associated with CoCo's 7 syndromes. We tested CoCo's performance on a set of 527,228 chief complaints from patients registered at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center emergency department (ED) between 1990 and 2003. We performed a sensitivity analysis by varying the ICD-9 codes in the criterion standard. We also tested CoCo on chief complaints from EDs in a second location (Utah).
Approximately 16% (85,569/527,228) of the patients were classified according to the criterion standard into 1 of the 7 syndromes. CoCo's classification performance (number of cases by criterion standard, sensitivity [95% confidence interval (CI)], and specificity [95% CI]) was respiratory (34,916, 63.1 [62.6 to 63.6], 94.3 [94.3 to 94.4]); botulinic (1,961, 30.1 [28.2 to 32.2], 99.3 [99.3 to 99.3]); gastrointestinal (20,431, 69.0 [68.4 to 69.6], 95.6 [95.6 to 95.7]); neurologic (7,393, 67.6 [66.6 to 68.7], 92.7 [92.6 to 92.8]); rash (2,232, 46.8 [44.8 to 48.9], 99.3 [99.3 to 99.3]); constitutional (10,603, 45.8 [44.9 to 46.8], 96.6 [96.6 to 96.7]); and hemorrhagic (8,033, 75.2 [74.3 to 76.2], 98.5 [98.4 to 98.5]). The sensitivity analysis showed that the results were not affected by the choice of ICD-9 codes in the criterion standard. Classification accuracy did not differ on chief complaints from the second location.
Our results suggest that, for most syndromes, our chief complaint classification system can identify about half of the patients with relevant syndromic presentations, with specificities higher than 90% and positive predictive values ranging from 12% to 44%.
电子监测系统常常监测分诊主诉,以期比传统报告方法更早地发现疫情暴发。我们评估了一种名为CoCo的贝叶斯主诉分类器的准确性,该分类器根据分诊主诉的自由文本将患者分配到7种症状类别(呼吸道、肉毒中毒、胃肠道、神经、皮疹、全身症状或出血性)中的一种。
我们将CoCo的分类与基于《国际疾病分类》第九版(ICD-9)出院诊断的标准症状分类进行比较。根据患者的主要诊断是否为与CoCo的7种综合征相关的一组ICD-9编码中的一员,我们为患者指定标准分类。我们在1990年至2003年期间匹兹堡大学医学中心急诊科(ED)登记的527228例患者的一组主诉上测试了CoCo的性能。我们通过改变标准中的ICD-9编码进行了敏感性分析。我们还在另一个地点(犹他州)的急诊科的主诉上测试了CoCo。
根据标准,约16%(85569/527228)的患者被分类到7种综合征中的一种。CoCo的分类性能(按标准分类的病例数、敏感性[95%置信区间(CI)]和特异性[95%CI])为:呼吸道(34916,63.1[62.6至63.6],94.3[94.3至94.4]);肉毒中毒(1961,30.1[28.2至32.2],99.3[99.3至99.3]);胃肠道(20431,69.0[68.4至69.6],95.6[95.6至95.7]);神经(7393,67.6[66.6至68.7],92.7[92.6至92.8]);皮疹(2232,46.8[44.8至48.9],99.3[99.3至99.3]);全身症状(10603,45.8[44.9至46.8],96.6[96.6至96.7]);出血性(8033,75.2[74.3至76.2],98.5[98.4至98.5])。敏感性分析表明,结果不受标准中ICD-9编码选择的影响。来自另一个地点的主诉的分类准确性没有差异。
我们的结果表明,对于大多数综合征,我们的主诉分类系统可以识别约一半有相关症状表现的患者,特异性高于90%,阳性预测值在12%至44%之间。