4.7 Article

A digital physician peer to automatically detect erroneous prescriptions in radiotherapy

Journal

NPJ DIGITAL MEDICINE
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41746-022-00703-9

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [2035750]
  2. Dir for Tech, Innovation, & Partnerships [2035750] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  3. Translational Impacts [2035750] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Appropriate dosing of radiation is crucial to patient safety in radiotherapy. A novel prescription anomaly detection algorithm is designed that utilizes historical data to predict anomalous cases, providing extra safety to the patients.
Appropriate dosing of radiation is crucial to patient safety in radiotherapy. Current quality assurance depends heavily on a physician peer-review process, which includes a review of the treatment plan's dose and fractionation. Potentially, physicians may not identify errors during this manual peer review due to time constraints and caseload. A novel prescription anomaly detection algorithm is designed that utilizes historical data from the past to predict anomalous cases. Such a tool can serve as an electronic peer who will assist the peer-review process providing extra safety to the patients. In our primary model, we create two dissimilarity metrics, R and F. R defining how far a new patient's prescription is from historical prescriptions. F represents how far away a patient's feature set is from that of the group with an identical or similar prescription. We flag prescription if either metric is greater than specific optimized cut-off values. We use thoracic cancer patients (n = 2504) as an example and extracted seven features. Our testing set f1 score is between 73%-94% for different treatment technique groups. We also independently validate our results by conducting a mock peer review with three thoracic specialists. Our model has a lower type II error rate compared to the manual peer-review by physicians.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available