Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 16, 2026

Observational Study Protocol for Repeated Clinical Examination and Critical Care Ultrasonography Within the Simple Intensive Care Studies
Published on: January 16, 2019
Inter-clinician diagnostic agreement of shock etiology: a multicenter observational study
Lauren M Janczewski1, Carolyn J Hu1, Tiannan Zhan1
1Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 676 N. St. Clair, Suite 650, Chicago, IL 60611 USA.
Purpose:
We sought to (1) quantify lack of inter-clinician diagnostic agreement of shock etiology and (2) predict patients without complete inter-clinician diagnostic agreement of shock etiology.
Methods:
This multicenter retrospective, cohort study identified patients evaluated by two or more clinicians who documented a shock diagnosis from 2018 to 2023 across intensive care units (ICU) at 9 acute care hospitals. Shock etiology was abstracted using regular expression from clinician notes in the electronic health record then was made into a 9-dimensional vector representing 9 different shock etiologies. Inter-clinician diagnostic agreement of these vectors was calculated for each patient using Cosine Similarity Scores. Measure of agreement was based on cosine similarity of etiology vectors, not clinical adjudication. Patients without complete inter-clinician diagnostic agreement (Cosine Similarity Score < 1) were compared to patients with diagnostic agreement. Machine learning models were tested to predict patients without complete inter-clinician diagnostic agreement.
Results:
Of 7302 patients, 1327 (18.2%) never had complete inter-clinician diagnostic agreement. Patients without diagnostic agreement were more often Black (20.5 vs 16.2%, p = 0.011), with more comorbidities (Elixhauser Comorbidity Index > 10; 39.1 vs 31.6%, p < 0.001), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score > 15 (12.1 vs 7.6%, p < 0.001). Patients without diagnostic agreement less frequently had improvements in SOFA scores between ICU days 0 and 4 (34.7 vs 41.9%, p < 0.001), and more often died in-hospital (41.5 vs. 27.6%, p < 0.001). Machine learning models that most accurately predicted patients without diagnostic agreement were logistic regression (Accuracy: 0.8597, F1-Score: 0.9117, AUC-ROC: 0.9257), random forest (Accuracy: 0.8658, F1-Score: 0.9201, AUC-ROC: 0.9255), and gradient boosting (Accuracy: 0.8515, F1-Score: 0.9138, AUC-ROC: 0.9227).
Conclusion:
Patients without complete inter-clinician diagnostic agreement of shock etiology can be successfully predicted.
Supplementary Information:
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13755-025-00423-w.
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Hypertension III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Blood Pressure Imbalances and Circulatory Shock
Blood Pressure: Hypertension and Hypotension
Normal blood pressure is 120/80 mm Hg. Elevated blood pressure is 120-129/under 80 mm Hg. Hypertension, warranting treatment at 130/80 mm Hg, is often asymptomatic and can lead to severe cardiovascular events, aneurysms, peripheral arterial disease, chronic renal disease, or cardiac...

