Evaluation of CaDet, a computer-based clinical decision support system for early cancer detection: A comparison with the performance of clinicians

Israel Heller, Aharon Isakov, Yael Villa, Haled Natour, Moshe Inbar, Jacob Fuchs, Sorela Blinder-Vayner, Itzhak Shapira, Marcel Topilsky

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Based on an analysis of the epidemiologic and clinical attributes of individual patients, the CaDet computer program presents physicians with data patterns that may require clinical attention with regard to early cancer detection. This study evaluated the performance of the program as a possible tool to aid clinicians in the latter. Patient data were obtained by a questionnaire from 160 healthy volunteers. Scored cancer alerts generated by the computer program in response to this data were evaluated in comparison to similar alerts provided by five expert internists who reviewed the same information in blinded fashion. The alert profiles generated by the computer for each of the patients examined were highly correlated to those provided by the clinicians. The computer's alert rate increased with the number of physicians who raised corresponding alerts (20%, 32%, 54%, 73% and 91%, respectively, for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 physicians, p < 0.0001) and with the overall weight assigned by the physicians to these alerts (22%, 56%, 84% and 90% for cumulative scores of 1-4, 5-8, 9-12 and 13 or more points, respectively, p < 0.0001). It is concluded that the CaDet computer program may have a role in improving early detection, pending the results of further clinical research.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)352-356
Number of pages5
JournalCancer Detection and Prevention
Volume28
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2004

Keywords

  • Cancer screening
  • Decision support systems
  • Early cancer detection

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of CaDet, a computer-based clinical decision support system for early cancer detection: A comparison with the performance of clinicians'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this