Bottieau Emmanuel, Moreira Juan, Clerinx Jan, Colebunders Robert, Van Gompel Alfons, Van den Ende Jef
Department of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Med Decis Making. 2008 May-Jun;28(3):435-42. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07312715. Epub 2008 Feb 29.
The authors evaluate the performance of the expert system Global Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) in diagnosing febrile illnesses occurring after a stay in the tropics.
One investigator (E.B.) entered into the program the collected characteristics of 161 febrile travelers randomly extracted from a database of 1842 cases prospectively included during a study on imported fever. Accuracy was considered acceptable if the correct diagnosis appeared in the top 5 GIDEON ranking list. Interuser agreement was assessed by J.V.d.E. and J.M., who also entered the data of the first 50 sample cases with an established diagnosis.
The sample was epidemiologically and clinically representative of the whole cohort. An infectious etiology had been established in 129 cases; diagnosis was unknown in 31 cases and non-infectious in 1 case. GIDEON generated a median of 29 diagnoses per case, including 23 with a probability lower than 1%. Accuracy was acceptable in 64% of the 129 fevers with infectious etiology. It tended to decrease when more than 3 findings were entered per case. Eleven (8%) severe conditions were rejected by GIDEON because non-disease-related characteristics had been introduced. In other cases, the posttest probability was inadequately affected by the insufficient weight of absent relevant findings. Interuser agreement was good for acceptable accuracy and final ranking (kappa=0.83 and 0.72, respectively).
The performance of GIDEON in diagnosing imported fever is relatively good and reproducible but is impaired by some conceptual weaknesses. Its use might be hazardous for inexperienced physicians.
作者评估全球传染病与流行病学网络(GIDEON)专家系统在诊断热带地区停留后出现的发热性疾病方面的表现。
一名研究人员(E.B.)将从一项关于输入性发热研究中前瞻性纳入的1842例病例数据库中随机抽取的161例发热旅行者的收集特征输入该程序。如果正确诊断出现在GIDEON排名前5的列表中,则认为准确性是可接受的。J.V.d.E.和J.M.评估了用户间的一致性,他们也输入了前50例已确诊样本病例的数据。
该样本在流行病学和临床方面代表了整个队列。129例已确定感染病因;31例诊断不明,1例为非感染性病因。GIDEON每个病例生成的诊断中位数为29个,其中23个概率低于1%。在129例有感染病因的发热病例中,64%的准确性是可接受的。当每个病例输入超过3个发现时,准确性往往会降低。11例(8%)严重病例被GIDEON排除,因为输入了与疾病无关的特征。在其他情况下,由于缺乏相关发现的权重不足,检验后概率受到的影响不足。用户间在可接受的准确性和最终排名方面的一致性良好(kappa分别为0.83和0.72)。
GIDEON在诊断输入性发热方面的表现相对较好且可重复,但受到一些概念上的弱点的影响。对于经验不足的医生来说,使用它可能存在风险。