Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1804.03258

Comparing Clinical Judgment with MySurgeryRisk Algorithm for Preoperative Risk Assessment: A Pilot Study

Abstract

Background: Major postoperative complications are associated with increased short and long-term mortality, increased healthcare cost, and adverse long-term consequences. The large amount of data contained in the electronic health record (EHR) creates barriers for physicians to recognize patients most at risk. We hypothesize, if presented in an optimal format, information from data-driven predictive risk algorithms for postoperative complications can improve physician risk assessment. Methods: Prospective, non-randomized, interventional pilot study of twenty perioperative physicians at a quarterly academic medical center. Using 150 clinical cases we compared physicians' risk assessment before and after interaction with MySurgeryRisk, a validated machine-learning algorithm predicting preoperative risk for six major postoperative complications using EHR data. Results: The area under the curve (AUC) of MySurgeryRisk algorithm ranged between 0.73 and 0.85 and was significantly higher than physicians' risk assessments (AUC between 0.47 and 0.69) for all postoperative complications except cardiovascular complications. The AUC for repeated physician's risk assessment improved by 2% to 5% for all complications with the exception of thirty-day mortality. Physicians' risk assessment for acute kidney injury and intensive care unit admission longer than 48 hours significantly improved after knowledge exchange, resulting in net reclassification improvement of 12.4% and 16%, respectively. Conclusions: The validated MySurgeryRisk algorithm predicted postoperative complications with equal or higher accuracy than pilot cohort of physicians using available clinical preoperative data. The interaction with algorithm significantly improved physicians' risk assessment.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Meghan Brennan, Sahil Puri, Tezcan Ozrazgat-Baslanti, Rajendra Bhat, Zheng Feng, Petar Momcilovic, Xiaolin Li, Daisy Zhe Wang, Azra Bihorac. 2018-04-09. Comparing Clinical Judgment with MySurgeryRisk Algorithm for Preoperative Risk Assessment: A Pilot Study. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2019.01.002

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC