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

Emmanuel Bottieau, Juan Moreira, Jan Clerinx, Robert Colebunders, Alfons Van Gompel and Jef Van den Ende
Additional contact information
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

Medical Decision Making, 2008, vol. 28, issue 3, 435-442

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.

Keywords: expert system; travel medicine; diagnostic accuracy. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07312715 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:3:p:435-442

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07312715

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().