This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0272989X07312715v1 28/3/435    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bottieau, E. Articles by Van den Ende, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bottieau, E. Articles by Van den Ende, J. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Fever Infectious Diseases Traveler's Health Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Evaluation of the GIDEON Expert Computer Program for the Diagnosis of Imported Febrile Illnesses

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ebottieau{at}itg.be.

	Abstract

Objective. The authors evaluate the performance of the expert system Global Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) in diagnosing febrile illnesses occurring after a stay in the tropics. Methods. One investigator (E.B.) entered into the program the collected characteristics of 161 febrile travelers randomly extracted from a database of 1842 cases prospectively included during a study on imported fever. Accuracy was considered acceptable if the correct diagnosis appeared in the top 5 GIDEON ranking list. Interuser agreement was assessed by J.V.d.E. and J.M., who also entered the data of the first 50 sample cases with an established diagnosis. Results. The sample was epidemiologically and clinically representative of the whole cohort. An infectious etiology had been established in 129 cases; diagnosis was unknown in 31 cases and noninfectious in 1 case. GIDEON generated a median of 29 diagnoses per case, including 23 with a probability lower than 1%. Accuracy was acceptable in 64% of the 129 fevers with infectious etiology. It tended to decrease when more than 3 findings were entered per case. Eleven (8%) severe conditions were rejected by GIDEON because non-disease-related characteristics had been introduced. In other cases, the posttest probability was inadequately affected by the insufficient weight of absent relevant findings. Interuser agreement was good for acceptable accuracy and final ranking (kappa = 0.83 and 0.72, respectively). Conclusion. The performance of GIDEON in diagnosing imported fever is relatively good and reproducible but is impaired by some conceptual weaknesses. Its use might be hazardous for inexperienced physicians. Key words: expert system; travel medicine; diagnostic accuracy. (Med Decis Making 2008;XX:000–000)

First published on February 29, 2008, doi:10.1177/0272989X07312715

Medical Decision Making 2008;28:435.

A more recent version of this article appeared on June 1, 2008


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?