Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Machine learning-based delta check method for detecting misidentification errors in tumor marker tests.
Seok, Hyeon Seok; Choi, Yuna; Yu, Shinae; Shin, Kyung-Hwa; Kim, Sollip; Shin, Hangsik.
Afiliação
  • Seok HS; Interdisciplinary Program of Biomedical Engineering, Chonnam National University, Yeosu, Republic of Korea.
  • Choi Y; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Yu S; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea.
  • Shin KH; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea.
  • Kim S; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Shin H; Department of Digital Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Clin Chem Lab Med ; 2023 Dec 14.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38095534
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

Misidentification errors in tumor marker tests can lead to serious diagnostic and treatment errors. This study aims to develop a method for detecting these errors using a machine learning (ML)-based delta check approach, overcoming limitations of conventional methods.

METHODS:

We analyzed five tumor marker test

results:

alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), cancer antigen 125 (CA125), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). A total of 246,261 records were used in the analysis. Of these, 179,929 records were used for model training and 66,332 records for performance evaluation. We developed a misidentification error detection model based on the random forest (RF) and deep neural network (DNN) methods. We performed an in silico simulation with 1 % random sample shuffling. The performance of the developed models was evaluated and compared to conventional delta check methods such as delta percent change (DPC), absolute DPC (absDPC), and reference change values (RCV).

RESULTS:

The DNN model outperformed the RF, DPC, absDPC, and RCV methods in detecting sample misidentification errors. It achieved balanced accuracies of 0.828, 0.842, 0.792, 0.818, and 0.833 for AFP, CA19-9, CA125, CEA, and PSA, respectively. Although the RF method performed better than DPC and absDPC, it showed similar or lower performance compared to RCV.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our research results demonstrate that an ML-based delta check method can more effectively detect sample misidentification errors compared to conventional delta check methods. In particular, the DNN model demonstrated superior and stable detection performance compared to the RF, DPC, absDPC, and RCV methods.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Clin Chem Lab Med Assunto da revista: QUIMICA CLINICA / TECNICAS E PROCEDIMENTOS DE LABORATORIO Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Clin Chem Lab Med Assunto da revista: QUIMICA CLINICA / TECNICAS E PROCEDIMENTOS DE LABORATORIO Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article