Table 1.
The performance of the demographics-based filter (baseline) and the EHR-based ES algorithms
| Trial-centered Patient Cohort Identification | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algorithm | Evaluation Metrics | |||||||||
| WL | 95% CI | P[%] | Sp[%] | PV* | ||||||
| Demographics-based Filter | 163 | 149-179 | 1.9 | 24.3 | 8.30E-21 | |||||
| DX/ICD-9 | 50 | 35-64 | 6.20 | 78.1 | 5.27E-4 | |||||
| NOTE | 28 | 16-41 | 10.7 | 87.9 | 7.75E-2 | |||||
| DX/ICD-9+NOTE | 24 | 14-35 | 12.6 | 89.9 | N/A | |||||
| Patient-centered Trial Recommendation | ||||||||||
| Algorithm | Evaluation Metrics | |||||||||
| Sub-population case (127 patients) | Full-population case (215 patients) | |||||||||
| WL | 95% CI | P[%] | Sp[%] | PV* | WL | 95% CI | P[%] | Sp[%] | PV* | |
| Demographics-based Filter | 42 | 40-43 | 3.2 | 25.5 | 1.7E-143 | 42 | 40-43 | 1.9 | 24.3 | 1.5E-39 |
| DX/ICD-9 | 8 | 6-10 | 16.8 | 87.8 | 2.36E-7 | 22 | 19-25 | 3.6 | 60.7 | 3.85E-7 |
| NOTE | 4 | 3-5 | 33.1 | 95.0 | 2.54E-2 | 20 | 17-23 | 3.9 | 64.9 | 2.54E-2 |
| DX/ICD-9+NOTE | 3 | 3-4 | 35.7 | 95.5 | N/A | 19 | 17-22 | 4.0 | 65.5 | N/A |
DX/ICD9 indicates ES algorithm using only structured diagnoses and ICD-9 codes; NOTE, ES algorithm using only clinical notes; DX/ICD-9+NOTE, ES algorithm using both structured data and clinical notes.
WL indicates workload; CI, confidence interval; P, precision and Sp, specificity, PV, p-value.
*P-values were calculated by comparing the workload between DX/ICD-9+NOTE with the other algorithms.
N/A indicates that the performances between the two algorithms are identical and no p-value is returned.