Multivariate anomaly detection models enhance identification of errors in routine clinical chemistry testing.
anomaly detection
autovalidation
autoverification
sample contamination
Journal
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
ISSN: 1437-4331
Titre abrégé: Clin Chem Lab Med
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9806306
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Jun 2024
12 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
18
04
2024
accepted:
03
06
2024
medline:
12
6
2024
pubmed:
12
6
2024
entrez:
12
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Conventional autoverification rules evaluate analytes independently, potentially missing unusual patterns of results indicative of errors such as serum contamination by collection tube additives. This study assessed whether multivariate anomaly detection algorithms could enhance the detection of such errors. Multivariate Gaussian, k-nearest neighbours (KNN) distance, and one-class support vector machine (SVM) anomaly detection models, along with conventional limit checks, were developed using a training dataset of 127,451 electrolyte, urea, and creatinine (EUC) results, with a 5 % flagging rate targeted for all approaches. The models were compared with limit checks for their ability to detect atypical EUC results from samples spiked with additives from collection tubes: EDTA, fluoride, sodium citrate, or acid citrate dextrose (n=200 per contaminant). The study additionally assessed the ability of the models to identify 127,449 single-analyte errors, a potential weakness of multivariate models. The KNN distance and SVM models outperformed limit checks for detecting all contaminants (p-values <0.05). The multivariate Gaussian model did not surpass limit checks for detecting EDTA contamination but was superior for detecting the other additives. All models surpassed limit checks for identifying single-analyte errors, with the KNN distance model demonstrating the highest overall sensitivity. Multivariate anomaly detection models, particularly the KNN distance model, were superior to the conventional approach for detecting serum contamination and single-analyte errors. Developing multivariate approaches to autoverification is warranted to optimise error detection and improve patient safety.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38863349
pii: cclm-2024-0484
doi: 10.1515/cclm-2024-0484
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.
Références
Plebani, M. Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine? Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:750–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm.2006.123 .
doi: 10.1515/cclm.2006.123
Torke, N, Boral, L, Nguyen, T, Perri, A, Chakrin, A. Process improvement and operational efficiency through test result autoverification. Clin Chem 2005;51:2406–8. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2005.054395 .
doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2005.054395
Shih, MC, Chang, HM, Tien, N, Hsiao, CT, Peng, CT. Building and validating an autoverification system in the clinical chemistry laboratory. Lab Med 2011;42:668–73. https://doi.org/10.1309/lm5am4iixc4oietd .
doi: 10.1309/lm5am4iixc4oietd
Rimac, V, Lapic, I, Kules, K, Rogic, D, Miler, M. Implementation of the autovalidation algorithm for clinical chemistry testing in the laboratory information system. Lab Med 2018;49:284–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/labmed/lmx089 .
doi: 10.1093/labmed/lmx089
Fernández-Grande, E, Valera-Rodriguez, C, Sáenz-Mateos, L, Sastre-Gómez, A, García-Chico, P, Palomino-Muñoz, TJ. Impact of reference change value (RCV) based autoverification on turnaround time and physician satisfaction. Biochem Med 2017;27:342–9. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2017.037 .
doi: 10.11613/bm.2017.037
Schifman, RB, Talbert, M, Souers, RJ. Delta check practices and outcomes: a Q-probes study involving 49 health care facilities and 6541 delta check alerts. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2017;141:813–23. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2016-0161-cp .
doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0161-cp
Whitehurst, P, Di Silvio, TV, Boyadjian, G. Evaluation of discrepancies in patients’ results – an aspect of computer-assisted quality control. Clin Chem 1975;21:87–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/21.1.87 .
doi: 10.1093/clinchem/21.1.87
Cornes, MP, Ford, C, Gama, R. Undetected spurious hypernatraemia wastes health-care resources. Ann Clin Biochem 2011;48:87–8. https://doi.org/10.1258/acb.2010.010200 .
doi: 10.1258/acb.2010.010200
Lamb, EJ, Abbas, NA. Spurious hypernatraemia and Citra-Lock. Ann Clin Biochem 2007;44:579. https://doi.org/10.1258/000456307782268219 .
doi: 10.1258/000456307782268219
Milliere, J, Corriveau, D, Parmar, MS. Pseudohypernatraemia secondary to trisodium citrate (Citra-Lock™). Biochem Med 2016;26:260–3. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2016.030 .
doi: 10.11613/bm.2016.030
Sharratt, CL, Gilbert, CJ, Cornes, MC, Ford, C, Gama, R. EDTA sample contamination is common and often undetected, putting patients at unnecessary risk of harm. Int J Clin Pract 2009;63:1259–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01981.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01981.x
IBM . What is anomaly detection? [online]. https://www.ibm.com/topics/anomaly-detection [Accessed 4 Mar 2024].
Venables, WN, Ripley, BD. Modern applied statistics with S , 4th ed.. New York: Springer; 2002.
Beygelzimer, A, Kakadet, S, Langford, J, Arya, S, Mount, D, Li, S. FNN: fast nearest neighbor search algorithms and applications. R package version 1.1.3.2; 2023. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=FNN .
Meyer, D, Dimitriadou, E, Hornik, K, Weingessel, A, Leisch, F. e1071: misc functions of the Department of Statistics, Probability Theory Group (formerly: E1071), TU Wien. R package version 1.7-13; 2023. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=e1071 .
Asif, U, Whitehead, SJ, Ford, C, Gama, R. Preanalytical potassium EDTA sample contamination: open versus closed phlebotomy systems. Ann Clin Biochem 2019;56:711–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004563219878463 .
doi: 10.1177/0004563219878463
R Core Team . R: a language and environment for statistical computing . Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022.
Randell, EW, Yenice, S, Khine Wamono, AA, Orth, M. Autoverification of test results in the core clinical laboratory. Clin Biochem 2019;73:11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2019.08.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2019.08.002
Randell, EW, Short, G, Lee, N, Beresford, A, Spencer, M, Kennel, M, et al.. Strategy for 90% autoverification of clinical chemistry and immunoassay test results using six sigma process improvement. Data Brief 2018;18:1740–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.04.080 .
doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2018.04.080