Clinical decision-making framework against over-testing based on modeling implicit evaluation criteria

Different statistical methods include various subjective criteria that can prevent over-testing. However, no unified framework that defines generalized objective criteria for various diseases is available to determine the appropriateness of diagnostic tests recommended by doctors. We present the clinical decision-making framework against over-testing based on modeling the implicit evaluation criteria (CDFO-MIEC). The CDFO-MIEC quantifies the subjective evaluation process using statistics-based methods to identify over-testing. Furthermore, it determines the test's appropriateness with extracted entities obtained via named entity recognition and entity alignment. More specifically, implicit evaluation criteria are defined-namely, the correlation among the diagnostic tests, symptoms, and diseases, confirmation function, and exclusion function. Additionally, four evaluation strategies are implemented by applying statistical methods, including the multi-label k-nearest neighbor and the conditional probability algorithms, to model the implicit evaluation criteria. Finally, they are combined into a classification and regression tree to make the final decision. The CDFO-MIEC also provides interpretability by decision conditions for supporting each clinical decision of over-testing. We tested the CDFO-MIEC on 2,860 clinical texts obtained from a single respiratory medicine department in China with the appropriate confirmation by physicians. The dataset was supplemented with random inappropriate tests. The proposed framework excelled against the best competing text classification methods with a Mean_F₁ of 0.9167. This determined whether the appropriate and inappropriate tests were properly classified. The four evaluation strategies captured the features effectively, and they were imperative. Therefore, the proposed CDFO-MIEC is feasible because it exhibits high performance and can prevent over-testing.