Cargando…

Representing narrative evidence as clinical evidence logic statements

OBJECTIVE: Clinical evidence logic statements (CELS) are shareable knowledge artifacts in a semistructured “If-Then” format that can be used for clinical decision support systems. This project aimed to assess factors facilitating CELS representation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We described CELS represen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lacson, Ronilda, Eskian, Mahsa, Cochon, Laila, Gujrathi, Isha, Licaros, Andro, Zhao, Anna, Vetrano, Nicole, Schneider, Louise, Raja, Ali, Khorasani, Ramin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9030217/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35474718
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooac024
_version_ 1784692086930407424
author Lacson, Ronilda
Eskian, Mahsa
Cochon, Laila
Gujrathi, Isha
Licaros, Andro
Zhao, Anna
Vetrano, Nicole
Schneider, Louise
Raja, Ali
Khorasani, Ramin
author_facet Lacson, Ronilda
Eskian, Mahsa
Cochon, Laila
Gujrathi, Isha
Licaros, Andro
Zhao, Anna
Vetrano, Nicole
Schneider, Louise
Raja, Ali
Khorasani, Ramin
author_sort Lacson, Ronilda
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Clinical evidence logic statements (CELS) are shareable knowledge artifacts in a semistructured “If-Then” format that can be used for clinical decision support systems. This project aimed to assess factors facilitating CELS representation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We described CELS representation of clinical evidence. We assessed factors that facilitate representation, including authoring instruction, evidence structure, and educational level of CELS authors. Five researchers were tasked with representing CELS from published evidence. Represented CELS were compared with the formal representation. After an authoring instruction intervention, the same researchers were asked to represent the same CELS and accuracy was compared with that preintervention using McNemar’s test. Moreover, CELS representation accuracy was compared between evidence that is structured versus semistructured, and between CELS authored by specialty-trained versus nonspecialty-trained researchers, using χ(2) analysis. RESULTS: 261 CELS were represented from 10 different pieces of published evidence by the researchers pre- and postintervention. CELS representation accuracy significantly increased post-intervention, from 20/261 (8%) to 63/261 (24%, P value < .00001). More CELS were assigned for representation with 379 total CELS subsequently included in the analysis (278 structured and 101 semistructured) postintervention. Representing CELS from structured evidence was associated with significantly higher CELS representation accuracy (P = .002), as well as CELS representation by specialty-trained authors (P = .0004). DISCUSSION: CELS represented from structured evidence had a higher representation accuracy compared with semistructured evidence. Similarly, specialty-trained authors had higher accuracy when representing structured evidence. CONCLUSION: Authoring instructions significantly improved CELS representation with a 3-fold increase in accuracy. However, CELS representation remains a challenging task.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9030217
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90302172022-04-25 Representing narrative evidence as clinical evidence logic statements Lacson, Ronilda Eskian, Mahsa Cochon, Laila Gujrathi, Isha Licaros, Andro Zhao, Anna Vetrano, Nicole Schneider, Louise Raja, Ali Khorasani, Ramin JAMIA Open Research and Applications OBJECTIVE: Clinical evidence logic statements (CELS) are shareable knowledge artifacts in a semistructured “If-Then” format that can be used for clinical decision support systems. This project aimed to assess factors facilitating CELS representation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We described CELS representation of clinical evidence. We assessed factors that facilitate representation, including authoring instruction, evidence structure, and educational level of CELS authors. Five researchers were tasked with representing CELS from published evidence. Represented CELS were compared with the formal representation. After an authoring instruction intervention, the same researchers were asked to represent the same CELS and accuracy was compared with that preintervention using McNemar’s test. Moreover, CELS representation accuracy was compared between evidence that is structured versus semistructured, and between CELS authored by specialty-trained versus nonspecialty-trained researchers, using χ(2) analysis. RESULTS: 261 CELS were represented from 10 different pieces of published evidence by the researchers pre- and postintervention. CELS representation accuracy significantly increased post-intervention, from 20/261 (8%) to 63/261 (24%, P value < .00001). More CELS were assigned for representation with 379 total CELS subsequently included in the analysis (278 structured and 101 semistructured) postintervention. Representing CELS from structured evidence was associated with significantly higher CELS representation accuracy (P = .002), as well as CELS representation by specialty-trained authors (P = .0004). DISCUSSION: CELS represented from structured evidence had a higher representation accuracy compared with semistructured evidence. Similarly, specialty-trained authors had higher accuracy when representing structured evidence. CONCLUSION: Authoring instructions significantly improved CELS representation with a 3-fold increase in accuracy. However, CELS representation remains a challenging task. Oxford University Press 2022-04-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9030217/ /pubmed/35474718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooac024 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research and Applications
Lacson, Ronilda
Eskian, Mahsa
Cochon, Laila
Gujrathi, Isha
Licaros, Andro
Zhao, Anna
Vetrano, Nicole
Schneider, Louise
Raja, Ali
Khorasani, Ramin
Representing narrative evidence as clinical evidence logic statements
title Representing narrative evidence as clinical evidence logic statements
title_full Representing narrative evidence as clinical evidence logic statements
title_fullStr Representing narrative evidence as clinical evidence logic statements
title_full_unstemmed Representing narrative evidence as clinical evidence logic statements
title_short Representing narrative evidence as clinical evidence logic statements
title_sort representing narrative evidence as clinical evidence logic statements
topic Research and Applications
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9030217/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35474718
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooac024
work_keys_str_mv AT lacsonronilda representingnarrativeevidenceasclinicalevidencelogicstatements
AT eskianmahsa representingnarrativeevidenceasclinicalevidencelogicstatements
AT cochonlaila representingnarrativeevidenceasclinicalevidencelogicstatements
AT gujrathiisha representingnarrativeevidenceasclinicalevidencelogicstatements
AT licarosandro representingnarrativeevidenceasclinicalevidencelogicstatements
AT zhaoanna representingnarrativeevidenceasclinicalevidencelogicstatements
AT vetranonicole representingnarrativeevidenceasclinicalevidencelogicstatements
AT schneiderlouise representingnarrativeevidenceasclinicalevidencelogicstatements
AT rajaali representingnarrativeevidenceasclinicalevidencelogicstatements
AT khorasaniramin representingnarrativeevidenceasclinicalevidencelogicstatements