Search

Clinical and biochemical data were collected prospectively from 8032 jaundiced patients to form a database as part of a EU-supported project on computer-aided diagnosis. Patients were recruited prospectively from centres in all EU-countries and some other countries as well. Five hundred and twenty-eight jaundiced patients were collected from four centres in Denmark. Alcoholic cirrhosis, acute alcoholic liver disease and malignancy of the pancreas or the biliary tract were more common in the Danish data base: 49% of cases in Denmark as compared to 30% of cases in the international database. Viral hepatitis was underrepresented in Denmark, 16% as compared to 23% in the international group. A crude Bayesian diagnostic programme on the total database with 17 diagnostic groups achieved 63% accuracy. For the 528 Danish cases the diagnostic accuracy was 64% when the European data base was used, whereas it increased to 81% when only the Danish data base was taken as basis for the calculations. In conclusion, we found a drop in diagnostic accuracy for the Danish patients when using the large European data base instead of the national one.

During the last 20 years, Danish gastroenterologists and biostatisticians have been involved in practical and theoretical research aimed at providing computer-assisted decision support in clinical practice. On the practical side, we summarize two clinical applications, one in the acute abdomen, the other in jaundice. The former project is part of a worldwide effort which appears able to reduce considerably the perforated appendix rate and the negative laparotomy rate. In the latter project, also entwined in international activities, three methods of early statistical discrimination of jaundice causes have been tested, and it has been shown how ultrasonographic data can be incorporated into the diagnostic assessment. On the theoretical side, a Dutch-Danish group has been looking into how one best designs a trial and analyses its data in the context of measuring the quality and impact of machine-made diagnostic advice. Having pointed out the international ramifications of these activities, we outline what may lie ahead: Gastroenterologists must be prepared to join large-scale field trials of clinical advice-giving software. In the future, however, such software will often become embedded in general hospital recordkeeping systems.

A consecutive series of 1002 jaundiced adult patients covering 23 different causes of jaundice is presented. Patients were followed up for 2 to 7 years. The survival for the 784 patients included during their first episode of jaundice was calculated for each diagnostic category. Examples of decreased survival as compared with the general population were (figures indicate 3 months' and 5 years' survival, respectively): alcoholic cirrhosis 0.81, 0.35; cryptogenic cirrhosis 0.78, 0.32; pancreatic carcinoma 0.54, 0.04; cholangiocarcinoma 0.26, 0.00; and heart failure with liver congestion 0.47, 0.07. Ten of 172 patients with acute viral hepatitis died, 1 of fulminant hepatitis and 9 because of suicide or accidents. Of 105 patients with gallstones 37 died during the study period, but in only 9 of these could death be attributed to the gallstone disease. New diagnostic methods and types of treatment for jaundiced patients have been developed during recent years. To justify fully these diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, knowledge of the prognosis for the various causes of jaundice is essential.

This paper shows that an algorithm for differential diagnosis of jaundice developed in Denmark has been successfully transferred for use in a Swedish hospital. The algorithm, which is based on data from nearly 1000 patients, utilises 21 items of information from the medical history, physical examination and blood chemistry. The algorithm recognises four diagnostic groups: benign obstructive jaundice, malignant obstructive jaundice, acute non-obstructive jaundice, and chronic non-obstructive jaundice. To each item of information, a score is attached reflecting its weight of evidence. Summing the scores for the symptoms and signs that are present leads to a probabilistic statement about the diagnosis. Because of missing data in the Swedish patient material, three of the items were excluded from the original algorithm. Corrections were made for differences in the distribution of diseases. In reclassification of 985 Danish patients the modified algorithm's "best bid", i.e. the diagnosis given the highest probability, was correct in 78% of cases. More important, 93% of the cases given a "confident" diagnosis (probability greater than 0.80) were correct. The corresponding figures when the algorithm was applied to Swedish patients were 76% and 93%, respectively. In both series the predicted probabilities were matched by a corresponding proportion of actual diagnostic hits. It is concluded that the algorithm leads to reliable estimates of diagnostic probabilities in jaundice and that the algorithm seems to work well in Sweden also.

During approximately 2 years 106 clinical and routine laboratory parameters were obtained from each of 500 jaundiced patients consecutively admitted to the surgical and medical departments in a hospital covering a third of the hospital admissions in the city of Copenhagen. The patients were classified mainly by morphological criteria (397 patients) or the subsequent clinical course (103 patients) into five major diagnostic categories: acute parenchymal jaundice (113 patients), chronic parenchymal jaundice (97 patients), gallstone disease (76 patients), malignant obstructive jaundice (104 patients), and other causes of jaundice (110 patients). The five major categories covered 23 specific diagnoses. Within 3 months of admission 21% of the patients died, and the mortality varied from 4% in acute parenchymal jaundice to 49% in jaundice due to malignant disease.