CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 131Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationElectronic Health Records SystemsMachine Learning in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing clinical judgment with the MySurgeryRisk algorithm for preoperative risk assessment: a pilot usability study.

Open access
Brennan, Meghan, Puri, Sahil, Ozrazgat-Baslanti, Tezcan, Feng, Zheng, Ruppert, Matthew, Hashemighouchani, Haleh, Momcilovic, Petar, Li, Xiaolin, Wang, Daisy Zhe, Bihorac, Azra·2019·Surgery
DOI 10.1016/j.surg.2019.01.002PMC PMC6502657
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Major postoperative complications are associated with increased cost and mortality. The complexity of electronic health records overwhelms physicians' abilities to use the information for optimal and timely preoperative risk assessment. We hypothesized that data-driven, predictive-risk algorithms implemented in an intelligent decision-support platform simplify and augment physicians' risk assessments.Methods This prospective, nonrandomized pilot study of 20 physicians at a quaternary academic medical center compared the usability and accuracy of preoperative risk assessment between physicians and MySurgeryRisk, a validated, machine-learning algorithm, using a simulated workflow for the real-time, intelligent decision-support platform. We used area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to compare the accuracy of physicians' risk assessment for six postoperative complications before and after interaction with the algorithm for 150 clinical cases.Results The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the MySurgeryRisk algorithm ranged between 0.73 and 0.85 and was significantly better than physicians' initial risk assessments (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve between 0.47 and 0.69) for all postoperative complications except cardiovascular. After interaction with the algorithm, the physicians significantly improved their risk assessment for acute kidney injury and for an intensive care unit admission greater than 48 hours, resulting in a net improvement of reclassification of 12% and 16%, respectively. Physicians rated the algorithm as easy to use and useful.Conclusion Implementation of a validated, MySurgeryRisk computational algorithm for real-time predictive analytics with data derived from the electronic health records to augment physicians' decision-making is feasible and accepted by physicians. Early involvement of physicians as key stakeholders in both design and implementation of this technology will be crucial for its future success.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.surg.2019.01.002

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 32 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–131 of 131

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Brennan, M., Puri, S., Ozrazgat-Baslanti, T., Feng, Z., Ruppert, M., Hashemighouchani, H., Momcilovic, P., Li, X., Wang, D. Z., & Bihorac, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida Health (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Bihorac, Azra
ORCID
Venue
Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
165
Issue
5
Pages
1035-1045
ISSN
0039-6060 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.surg.2019.01.002
PMC
PMC6502657
OpenAlex
W2797775685
Cited by
131
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001427, UL1TR000064)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P50GM111152, R01GM110240)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
preoperative risk assessment, clinical judgment, clinical decision support, postoperative complications, electronic health records, usability, physician acceptance, acute kidney injury, intensive care unit admission, surgical risk prediction
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Machine Learning, Adult, Aged, Clinical Competence, Decision Support Techniques, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Postoperative Complications, Preoperative Care, Prospective Studies, ROC Curve, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Risk Assessment, Surgeons

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review