Differential impact of cognitive computing augmented by real world evidence on novice and expert oncologists

Introduction Cognitive computing point‐of‐care decision support tools which ingest patient attributes from electronic health records and display treatment options based on expert training and medical literature, supplemented by real world evidence (RWE), might prove useful to expert and novice oncol...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer medicine (Malden, MA) MA), 2019-11, Vol.8 (15), p.6578-6584
Hauptverfasser: McNamara, Donna M., Goldberg, Stuart L., Latts, Lisa, Atieh Graham, Deena M., Waintraub, Stanley E., Norden, Andrew D., Landstrom, Cody, Pecora, Andrew L., Hervey, John, Schultz, Eric V., Wang, Ching-Kun, Jungbluth, Nicholas, Francis, Phillip M., Snowdon, Jane L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction Cognitive computing point‐of‐care decision support tools which ingest patient attributes from electronic health records and display treatment options based on expert training and medical literature, supplemented by real world evidence (RWE), might prove useful to expert and novice oncologists. The concordance of augmented intelligence systems with best medical practices and potential influences on physician behavior remain unknown. Methods Electronic health records from 88 breast cancer patients evaluated at a USA tertiary care center were presented to subspecialist experts and oncologists focusing on other disease states with and without reviewing the IBM Watson for Oncology with Cota RWE platform. Results The cognitive computing “recommended” option was concordant with selection by breast cancer experts in 78.5% and “for consideration” option was selected in 9.4%, yielding agreements in 87.9%. Fifty‐nine percent of non‐concordant responses were generated from 8% of cases. In the Cota observational database 69.3% of matched controls were treated with “recommended,” 11.4% “for consideration”, and 19.3% “not recommended.” Without guidance from Watson for Oncology (WfO)/Cota RWE, novice oncologists chose 75.5% recommended/for consideration treatments which improved to 95.3% with WfO/Cota RWE. The novices were more likely than experts to choose a non‐recommended option (P 
ISSN:2045-7634
2045-7634
DOI:10.1002/cam4.2548