Garbage in, (mis)diagnosis out: making laboratory measurement bias visible and actionable across clinical algorithm outputs.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Niels van Noort, Marith van Schrojenstein Lantman, Mathie P G Leers, Remy J H Martens, Volkher Scharnhorst, Marc H M Thelen, Arjen-Kars Boer
{"title":"Garbage in, (mis)diagnosis out: making laboratory measurement bias visible and actionable across clinical algorithm outputs.","authors":"Niels van Noort, Marith van Schrojenstein Lantman, Mathie P G Leers, Remy J H Martens, Volkher Scharnhorst, Marc H M Thelen, Arjen-Kars Boer","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2026-1156","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Clinical algorithms increasingly combine multiple laboratory measurands to support diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment decisions. Yet, measurement bias arising from differences in calibration, reagent lots, or analytical platforms can propagate through such algorithms in non-linear ways, shifting outputs and altering clinical classifications. Existing external quality assessment (EQA) programmes evaluate measurands individually and do not capture the cumulative effect of bias on algorithm behaviour. We present a framework that extends EQA to quantify and communicate the impact of laboratory-specific measurement bias on clinical algorithm outputs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Bias estimates derived from EQA results are injected into a representative patient cohort and propagated through the algorithm; when clinical outcomes are available, output shifts are translated into changes in clinically interpretable performance characteristics. Measurand-specific what-if analyses estimate the expected benefit of correcting individual bias. The framework is illustrated using the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index and scalability is demonstrated on the ten-input CoLab COVID-19 severity score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participant-facing reports were developed that summarise deviation from a zero-bias reference, position each laboratory within the peer distribution, and identify which input measurands offer the greatest potential for performance recovery. Applied to FIB-4, the reports demonstrate how laboratories can locate themselves relative to clinically desired performance thresholds and receive actionable, measurand-specific guidance to prioritise corrective efforts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>By translating bias-propagation analysis into interpretable laboratory reports, this framework bridges the gap between measurand-level analytical performance and clinical algorithm performance. It supports post-deployment monitoring, cross-laboratory comparability and verification, targeted quality improvement, and is applicable to any transparent formula-based clinical algorithm.</p>","PeriodicalId":10390,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2026-1156","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Clinical algorithms increasingly combine multiple laboratory measurands to support diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment decisions. Yet, measurement bias arising from differences in calibration, reagent lots, or analytical platforms can propagate through such algorithms in non-linear ways, shifting outputs and altering clinical classifications. Existing external quality assessment (EQA) programmes evaluate measurands individually and do not capture the cumulative effect of bias on algorithm behaviour. We present a framework that extends EQA to quantify and communicate the impact of laboratory-specific measurement bias on clinical algorithm outputs.

Methods: Bias estimates derived from EQA results are injected into a representative patient cohort and propagated through the algorithm; when clinical outcomes are available, output shifts are translated into changes in clinically interpretable performance characteristics. Measurand-specific what-if analyses estimate the expected benefit of correcting individual bias. The framework is illustrated using the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index and scalability is demonstrated on the ten-input CoLab COVID-19 severity score.

Results: Participant-facing reports were developed that summarise deviation from a zero-bias reference, position each laboratory within the peer distribution, and identify which input measurands offer the greatest potential for performance recovery. Applied to FIB-4, the reports demonstrate how laboratories can locate themselves relative to clinically desired performance thresholds and receive actionable, measurand-specific guidance to prioritise corrective efforts.

Conclusions: By translating bias-propagation analysis into interpretable laboratory reports, this framework bridges the gap between measurand-level analytical performance and clinical algorithm performance. It supports post-deployment monitoring, cross-laboratory comparability and verification, targeted quality improvement, and is applicable to any transparent formula-based clinical algorithm.

垃圾输入,(错误)诊断输出:使实验室测量偏差在临床算法输出中可见和可操作。
目的:临床算法越来越多地结合多种实验室测量来支持诊断、预后和治疗决策。然而,由校准、试剂批次或分析平台的差异引起的测量偏差可能以非线性方式通过这些算法传播,从而改变输出和改变临床分类。现有的外部质量评估(EQA)程序单独评估测量,并没有捕捉到偏差对算法行为的累积效应。我们提出了一个扩展EQA的框架,以量化和传达实验室特定测量偏差对临床算法输出的影响。方法:将来自EQA结果的偏倚估计注入到具有代表性的患者队列中,并通过算法传播;当临床结果可用时,输出位移被转化为临床可解释的性能特征的变化。具体测量的假设分析估计了纠正个体偏见的预期效益。该框架使用纤维化-4 (FIB-4)指数进行说明,并在十输入CoLab COVID-19严重程度评分上展示了可扩展性。结果:面向参与者的报告总结了与零偏差参考的偏差,在同行分布中定位每个实验室,并确定哪些输入措施提供了最大的性能恢复潜力。应用于FIB-4,报告展示了实验室如何定位自己相对于临床期望的性能阈值,并获得可操作的,测量特定的指导,以优先考虑纠正工作。结论:通过将偏差传播分析转化为可解释的实验室报告,该框架弥合了测量级分析性能与临床算法性能之间的差距。它支持部署后监测、跨实验室可比性和验证、有针对性的质量改进,适用于任何透明的基于配方的临床算法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
16.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) publishes articles on novel teaching and training methods applicable to laboratory medicine. CCLM welcomes contributions on the progress in fundamental and applied research and cutting-edge clinical laboratory medicine. It is one of the leading journals in the field, with an impact factor over 3. CCLM is issued monthly, and it is published in print and electronically. CCLM is the official journal of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and publishes regularly EFLM recommendations and news. CCLM is the official journal of the National Societies from Austria (ÖGLMKC); Belgium (RBSLM); Germany (DGKL); Hungary (MLDT); Ireland (ACBI); Italy (SIBioC); Portugal (SPML); and Slovenia (SZKK); and it is affiliated to AACB (Australia) and SFBC (France). Topics: - clinical biochemistry - clinical genomics and molecular biology - clinical haematology and coagulation - clinical immunology and autoimmunity - clinical microbiology - drug monitoring and analysis - evaluation of diagnostic biomarkers - disease-oriented topics (cardiovascular disease, cancer diagnostics, diabetes) - new reagents, instrumentation and technologies - new methodologies - reference materials and methods - reference values and decision limits - quality and safety in laboratory medicine - translational laboratory medicine - clinical metrology Follow @cclm_degruyter on Twitter!
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书