IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i3p435-442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the GIDEON Expert Computer Program for the Diagnosis of Imported Febrile Illnesses

Author

Listed:
  • Emmanuel Bottieau

    (Department of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium, ebottieau@itg.be)

  • Juan Moreira

    (Centro de Epidemiología Comunitaria y Medicina Tropical, Esmeraldas, Ecuador)

  • Jan Clerinx

    (Department of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Robert Colebunders

    (Department of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium, Department of Tropical Medicine, University Hospital Antwerp (UHA), Edegem, Belgium)

  • Alfons Van Gompel

    (Department of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Jef Van den Ende

    (Department of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium, Department of Tropical Medicine, University Hospital Antwerp (UHA), Edegem, Belgium)

Abstract

Objective. The authors evaluate the performance of the expert system Global Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) in diagnosing febrile illnesses occurring after a stay in the tropics. Methods. One investigator (E.B.) entered into the program the collected characteristics of 161 febrile travelers randomly extracted from a database of 1842 cases prospectively included during a study on imported fever. Accuracy was considered acceptable if the correct diagnosis appeared in the top 5 GIDEON ranking list. Interuser agreement was assessed by J.V.d.E. and J.M., who also entered the data of the first 50 sample cases with an established diagnosis. Results. The sample was epidemiologically and clinically representative of the whole cohort. An infectious etiology had been established in 129 cases; diagnosis was unknown in 31 cases and non-infectious in 1 case. GIDEON generated a median of 29 diagnoses per case, including 23 with a probability lower than 1%. Accuracy was acceptable in 64% of the 129 fevers with infectious etiology. It tended to decrease when more than 3 findings were entered per case. Eleven (8%) severe conditions were rejected by GIDEON because non-disease-related characteristics had been introduced. In other cases, the posttest probability was inadequately affected by the insufficient weight of absent relevant findings. Interuser agreement was good for acceptable accuracy and final ranking (kappa=0.83 and 0.72, respectively). Conclusion. The performance of GIDEON in diagnosing imported fever is relatively good and reproducible but is impaired by some conceptual weaknesses. Its use might be hazardous for inexperienced physicians.

Suggested Citation

  • Emmanuel Bottieau & Juan Moreira & Jan Clerinx & Robert Colebunders & Alfons Van Gompel & Jef Van den Ende, 2008. "Evaluation of the GIDEON Expert Computer Program for the Diagnosis of Imported Febrile Illnesses," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(3), pages 435-442, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:3:p:435-442
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07312715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07312715
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07312715?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jay A. Brown, 2010. "Using a Relational Database to Index Infectious Disease Information," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-14, May.

    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:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:3:p:435-442. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.