Affiliation:
1. Department of Pathology, Washington University in St.Louis School of Medicine , St. Louis, MO , United States
2. Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center , Dallas, TX , United States
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Intravenous (IV) fluid contamination is a common cause of preanalytical error that can delay or misguide treatment decisions, leading to patient harm. Current approaches for detecting contamination rely on delta checks, which require a prior result, or manual technologist intervention, which is inefficient and vulnerable to human error. Supervised machine learning may provide a means to detect contamination, but its implementation is hindered by its reliance on expert-labeled training data. An automated approach that is accurate, reproducible, and practical is needed.
Methods
A total of 25 747 291 basic metabolic panel (BMP) results from 312 721 patients were obtained from the laboratory information system (LIS). A Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) model was trained and tested using a combination of real patient data and simulated IV fluid contamination. To provide an objective metric for classification, an “enrichment score” was derived and its performance assessed. Our current workflow was compared to UMAP predictions using expert chart review.
Results
UMAP embeddings from real patient results demonstrated outliers suspicious for IV fluid contamination when compared with the simulated contamination's embeddings. At a flag rate of 3 per 1000 results, the positive predictive value (PPV) was adjudicated to be 0.78 from 100 consecutive positive predictions. Of these, 58 were previously undetected by our current clinical workflows, with 49 BMPs displaying a total of 56 critical results.
Conclusions
Accurate and automatable detection of IV fluid contamination in BMP results is achievable without curating expertly labeled training data.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Subject
Biochemistry (medical),Clinical Biochemistry
Reference19 articles.
1. The global burden of diagnostic errors in primary care;Singh;BMJ Qual Saf,2017
2. Harnessing event report data to identify diagnostic error during the COVID-19 pandemic;Shen;Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf,2022
3. Errors in a stat laboratory: types and frequencies 10 years later;Carraro;Clin Chem,2007