首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings >Knowledge-Based Systems. Methods for Developing and Evaluating Expert Systems: Critiquing Physician Decision Making Using Data from Automated Medical Records: Assessing the Limitations
【2h】

Knowledge-Based Systems. Methods for Developing and Evaluating Expert Systems: Critiquing Physician Decision Making Using Data from Automated Medical Records: Assessing the Limitations

机译:基于知识的系统。开发和评估专家系统的方法:使用自动病历中的数据来评估医师的决策:评估局限性

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This paper describes the evaluation of a critiquing system, HYPERCRITIC, that relies on automated medical records for its data input. The purpose of HYPERCRITIC is to offer comments to general practitioners on their treatment of hypertension. HYPERCRITIC has access to the data stored in a primary-care information system that supports a fully automated medical record. Medical records of 20 patients with hypertension were submitted to both physicians and HYPERCRITIC. The critique generated by the physicians was subsequently compared to the critique generated by HYPERCRITIC. Of the 260 comments made by the majority of the physicians, 118 were also made by HYPERCRITIC. The reasons why HYPERCRITIC failed to reproduce the remaining 142 comments are evaluated.
机译:本文介绍了对HyperCRITIC批阅系统的评估,该系统依靠自动医疗记录进行数据输入。超级批评的目的是向全科医生提供有关高血压治疗的评论。 HYPERCRITIC可以访问存储在支持全自动医疗记录的初级保健信息系统中的数据。 20名高血压患者的病历已同时提交给医生和超级批评家。随后将医生产生的评论与超级评论产生的评论进行了比较。在大多数医生的260条评论中,HYPERCRITIC也发表了118条评论。评估了HYPERCRITIC无法重现其余142条评论的原因。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号