“…6,24 For example, a recently published study of 2809 random admissions in 11 Massachusetts hospitals identified 978 adverse events but only 10 diagnostic errors (diagnostic error rate, 0.4%). 19 This was likely because the trigger method used in the study did not specifically examine the diagnostic process as critically as done by the Safer Dx framework and DEER taxonomy tools, thereby underestimating the total number of diagnostic errors. Further, these ongoing studies (eg, UPSIDE, ADEPT) aim to employ new and upcoming advanced machine-learning methods to create models that can improve overall diagnostic performance.…”