基于机器学习的临床实验室检验样本识别错误检测:一项回顾性多中心研究

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Clinical chemistry Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1093/clinchem/hvae114
Hyeon Seok Seok, Shinae Yu, Kyung-Hwa Shin, Woochang Lee, Sail Chun, Sollip Kim, Hangsik Shin
{"title":"基于机器学习的临床实验室检验样本识别错误检测:一项回顾性多中心研究","authors":"Hyeon Seok Seok, Shinae Yu, Kyung-Hwa Shin, Woochang Lee, Sail Chun, Sollip Kim, Hangsik Shin","doi":"10.1093/clinchem/hvae114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In clinical laboratories, the precision and sensitivity of autoverification technologies are crucial for ensuring reliable diagnostics. Conventional methods have limited sensitivity and applicability, making error detection challenging and reducing laboratory efficiency. This study introduces a machine learning (ML)-based autoverification technology to enhance tumor marker test error detection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The effectiveness of various ML models was evaluated by analyzing a large data set of 397 751 for model training and internal validation and 215 339 for external validation. Sample misidentification was simulated by random shuffling error-free test results with a 1% error rate to achieve a real-world approximation. The ML models were developed with Bayesian optimization for tuning. Model validation was performed internally at the primary institution and externally at other institutions, comparing the ML models' performance with conventional delta check methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Deep neural networks and extreme gradient boosting achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.834 to 0.903, outperforming that of conventional methods (0.705 to 0.816). External validation by 3 independent laboratories showed that the balanced accuracy of the ML model ranged from 0.760 to 0.836, outperforming the balanced accuracy of 0.670 to 0.773 of the conventional models.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study addresses limitations regarding the sensitivity of current delta check methods for detection of sample misidentification errors and provides versatile models that mitigate the operational challenges faced by smaller laboratories. Our findings offer a pathway toward more efficient and reliable clinical laboratory testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":10690,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry","volume":" ","pages":"1256-1267"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine Learning-Based Sample Misidentification Error Detection in Clinical Laboratory Tests: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.\",\"authors\":\"Hyeon Seok Seok, Shinae Yu, Kyung-Hwa Shin, Woochang Lee, Sail Chun, Sollip Kim, Hangsik Shin\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/clinchem/hvae114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In clinical laboratories, the precision and sensitivity of autoverification technologies are crucial for ensuring reliable diagnostics. Conventional methods have limited sensitivity and applicability, making error detection challenging and reducing laboratory efficiency. This study introduces a machine learning (ML)-based autoverification technology to enhance tumor marker test error detection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The effectiveness of various ML models was evaluated by analyzing a large data set of 397 751 for model training and internal validation and 215 339 for external validation. Sample misidentification was simulated by random shuffling error-free test results with a 1% error rate to achieve a real-world approximation. The ML models were developed with Bayesian optimization for tuning. Model validation was performed internally at the primary institution and externally at other institutions, comparing the ML models' performance with conventional delta check methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Deep neural networks and extreme gradient boosting achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.834 to 0.903, outperforming that of conventional methods (0.705 to 0.816). External validation by 3 independent laboratories showed that the balanced accuracy of the ML model ranged from 0.760 to 0.836, outperforming the balanced accuracy of 0.670 to 0.773 of the conventional models.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study addresses limitations regarding the sensitivity of current delta check methods for detection of sample misidentification errors and provides versatile models that mitigate the operational challenges faced by smaller laboratories. Our findings offer a pathway toward more efficient and reliable clinical laboratory testing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10690,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical chemistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1256-1267\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvae114\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvae114","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在临床实验室中,自动验证技术的精确度和灵敏度对确保诊断的可靠性至关重要。传统方法的灵敏度和适用性有限,使得错误检测具有挑战性并降低了实验室效率。本研究介绍了一种基于机器学习(ML)的自动识别技术,以提高肿瘤标志物检验的错误检测能力:方法:通过分析 397 751 个用于模型训练和内部验证的大数据集和 215 339 个用于外部验证的大数据集,评估了各种 ML 模型的有效性。通过随机洗牌无差错测试结果来模拟样本误识别,误差率为 1%,以达到接近真实世界的效果。ML 模型采用贝叶斯优化方法进行调整。模型验证在主要机构内部和其他机构外部进行,将 ML 模型的性能与传统的 delta 检查方法进行比较:结果:深度神经网络和极梯度提升的接收者操作特征曲线下面积为 0.834 至 0.903,优于传统方法(0.705 至 0.816)。由 3 个独立实验室进行的外部验证显示,ML 模型的平衡准确度在 0.760 到 0.836 之间,优于传统模型的 0.670 到 0.773 的平衡准确度:这项研究解决了目前的 delta 检查方法在检测样本识别错误灵敏度方面的局限性,并提供了多功能模型,减轻了小型实验室面临的操作挑战。我们的研究结果为提高临床实验室检测的效率和可靠性提供了一条途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Machine Learning-Based Sample Misidentification Error Detection in Clinical Laboratory Tests: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

Background: In clinical laboratories, the precision and sensitivity of autoverification technologies are crucial for ensuring reliable diagnostics. Conventional methods have limited sensitivity and applicability, making error detection challenging and reducing laboratory efficiency. This study introduces a machine learning (ML)-based autoverification technology to enhance tumor marker test error detection.

Methods: The effectiveness of various ML models was evaluated by analyzing a large data set of 397 751 for model training and internal validation and 215 339 for external validation. Sample misidentification was simulated by random shuffling error-free test results with a 1% error rate to achieve a real-world approximation. The ML models were developed with Bayesian optimization for tuning. Model validation was performed internally at the primary institution and externally at other institutions, comparing the ML models' performance with conventional delta check methods.

Results: Deep neural networks and extreme gradient boosting achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.834 to 0.903, outperforming that of conventional methods (0.705 to 0.816). External validation by 3 independent laboratories showed that the balanced accuracy of the ML model ranged from 0.760 to 0.836, outperforming the balanced accuracy of 0.670 to 0.773 of the conventional models.

Conclusions: This study addresses limitations regarding the sensitivity of current delta check methods for detection of sample misidentification errors and provides versatile models that mitigate the operational challenges faced by smaller laboratories. Our findings offer a pathway toward more efficient and reliable clinical laboratory testing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical chemistry
Clinical chemistry 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
212
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that is the premier publication for the science and practice of clinical laboratory medicine. It was established in 1955 and is associated with the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM). The journal focuses on laboratory diagnosis and management of patients, and has expanded to include other clinical laboratory disciplines such as genomics, hematology, microbiology, and toxicology. It also publishes articles relevant to clinical specialties including cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, genetics, immunology, infectious diseases, maternal-fetal medicine, neurology, nutrition, oncology, and pediatrics. In addition to original research, editorials, and reviews, Clinical Chemistry features recurring sections such as clinical case studies, perspectives, podcasts, and Q&A articles. It has the highest impact factor among journals of clinical chemistry, laboratory medicine, pathology, analytical chemistry, transfusion medicine, and clinical microbiology. The journal is indexed in databases such as MEDLINE and Web of Science.
期刊最新文献
Virtual Gene Panels Have a Superior Diagnostic Yield for Inherited Rare Diseases Relative to Static Panels Xylazine Pharmacokinetics in Patients Testing Positive for Fentanyl and Xylazine. Prospective and External Validation of an Ensemble Learning Approach to Sensitively Detect Intravenous Fluid Contamination in Basic Metabolic Panels Niacin and Risk of Cardiovascular Events: Deciphering the Paradox. Alzheimer Disease Blood-Based Biomarkers: Translation from Research into Clinical Use.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1