Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A framework and model for evaluating clinical decision support architectures.

Adam Wright1, Dean F Sittig

  • 1Clinical Informatics Research and Development, Partners HealthCare, Boston, MA, USA. awright5@partners.org

Journal of Biomedical Informatics
|May 9, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Feasibility of implementation, diagnostic accuracy, and end-user impact of an electronic health record (EHR)-based ureteral stent tracking tool in a pediatric population.

Journal of pediatric urology·2026
Same author

Characterizing artificial intelligence (AI) psychosis in a large academic medical setting: evidence of the new clinical phenomenon and the vulnerability of those in early phases of psychosis.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences·2026
Same author

A real-world feasibility evaluation of LLM-based clinical prediction: emergency department return visit admission across two academic medical centers.

Research square·2026
Same author

Developing an expanded version of My Diabetes Care in English and Spanish: A design and formative usability study.

Digital health·2026
Same author

Outcomes of 72-hour emergency department return visits requiring hospital admission in older adults: a nationally representative analysis.

BMC geriatrics·2026
Same author

Comparison of machine learning methods for prediction of venous thromboembolism among hospitalized adults.

Journal of hospital medicine·2026
Same journal

Evaluation of temporal preservation in synthetic longitudinal patient data.

Journal of biomedical informatics·2026
Same journal

ARKE: An ontology-driven framework for automated mapping of local radiology procedure terms to the LOINC-RadLex playbook using large language model.

Journal of biomedical informatics·2026
Same journal

A validation-driven training controller for cross-lingual biomedical NER via reinforcement learning-based adaptive loss weighting.

Journal of biomedical informatics·2026
Same journal

ASP-HR: An Adaptive Spatial Perception and Hierarchical Reasoning mechanism for document-level biomedical relation extraction.

Journal of biomedical informatics·2026
Same journal

Beyond Accuracy: Safety-Centered guidelines for the evaluation of LLM-based therapy recommendation systems for chronic multimorbidity patients.

Journal of biomedical informatics·2026
Same journal

DeepEN: A deep reinforcement learning framework for personalized enteral nutrition in critical care.

Journal of biomedical informatics·2026
See all related articles

This study introduces a four-phase model to evaluate clinical decision support architectures. The framework assesses features, prototypes, integration, and comparative coverage of systems like Arden Syntax and GLIF.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Informatics
  • Computer Science

Background:

  • Clinical decision support (CDS) systems are crucial for healthcare.
  • Evaluating the effectiveness and integration capabilities of CDS architectures is complex.
  • Existing evaluation methods may not comprehensively assess architectural features and utility.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose and validate a structured four-phase model for evaluating clinical decision support architectures.
  • To provide a framework for assessing the desirable features, prototyping, integration, and comparative coverage of CDS architectures.
  • To apply the developed framework to established CDS architectures for empirical validation.

Main Methods:

  • Development of a four-phase evaluation model.
  • Phase 1: Defining desirable features for CDS architectures.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Phase 2: Building proof-of-concept prototypes.
  • Phase 3: Demonstrating utility through integration with existing systems.
  • Phase 4: Comparing architectural coverage against other systems.

    • Main Results:

    • The four-phase model was successfully applied to evaluate multiple CDS architectures.
    • The framework facilitated a systematic comparison of features, integration capabilities, and coverage.
    • Proof-of-concept prototypes demonstrated the practical utility of the evaluated architectures.

    Conclusions:

    • The proposed four-phase model offers a robust methodology for evaluating clinical decision support architectures.
    • This framework aids in understanding the strengths and limitations of different CDS architectural approaches.
    • The evaluation provides insights into the integration potential and comparative performance of systems like Arden Syntax, GLIF, SEBASTIAN, and SAGE.