Author
Listed:
- Francesca Marazza
(Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands)
- Faiza Allah Bukhsh
(Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands)
- Jeroen Geerdink
(Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), 7555 DL Hengelo, The Netherlands)
- Onno Vijlbrief
(Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), 7555 DL Hengelo, The Netherlands)
- Shreyasi Pathak
(Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands)
- Maurice van Keulen
(Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands)
- Christin Seifert
(Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands)
Abstract
Processes in organisations, such as hospitals, may deviate from the intended standard processes, due to unforeseeable events and the complexity of the organisation. For hospitals, the knowledge of actual patient streams for patient populations (e.g., severe or non-severe cases) is important for quality control and improvement. Process discovery from event data in electronic health records can shed light on the patient flows, but their comparison for different populations is cumbersome and time-consuming. In this paper, we present an approach for the automatic comparison of process models that were extracted from events in electronic health records. Concretely, we propose comparing processes for different patient populations by cross-log conformance checking, and standard graph similarity measures obtained from the directed graph underlying the process model. We perform a user study with 20 participants in order to obtain a ground truth for similarity of process models. We evaluate our approach on two data sets, the publicly available MIMIC database with the focus on different cancer patients in intensive care, and a database on breast cancer patients from a Dutch hospital. In our experiments, we found average fitness to be a good indicator for visual similarity in the ZGT use case, while the average precision and graph edit distance are strongly correlated with visual impression for cancer process models on MIMIC. These results are a call for further research and evaluation for determining which similarity or combination of similarities is needed in which type of process model comparison.
Suggested Citation
Francesca Marazza & Faiza Allah Bukhsh & Jeroen Geerdink & Onno Vijlbrief & Shreyasi Pathak & Maurice van Keulen & Christin Seifert, 2020.
"Automatic Process Comparison for Subpopulations: Application in Cancer Care,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-23, August.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:16:p:5707-:d:395845
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:16:p:5707-:d:395845. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.