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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |