Magdalena Eitenberger | University of Vienna (original) (raw)

Uploads

Papers by Magdalena Eitenberger

International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2023

Background and objective To improve the currently low conviction rate in cases of child abuse a f... more Background and objective
To improve the currently low conviction rate in cases of child abuse a forensic examination center for children and adolescents (FOKUS) was established in Vienna, Austria. Besides a state of the art treatment combined with forensic documentation, one of FOKUS’ key goals is to identify potential areas for improvements within the process legal proceedings in cases of child abuse through constant scientific monitoring. The accompanying study at hand includes all patients referred to FOKUS within a two year timeframe (n = 233), monitoring their progression from first contact with the medical professionals from FOKUS to the end of criminal proceedings. A detailed analysis of case files was performed in those cases that were reported to the legal authorities by the clinicians of FOKUS (n = 87). Aim of the study is to investigate which factors contribute to the initiation of legal proceedings and a successful conviction.

Results
Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that main proceedings were opened more often in cases where the offender was an adult (p < 0.001) or admitted his guilt (p < 0.001) and if digital traces were available (p = 0.001) or trial support (p = 0.024) present. Furthermore, the combined occurrence of medical documentation and victim disclosure was related to a higher probability of opening main trials.

Conclusion
These findings underline how challenging the successful persecution of an offender in cases of child abuse is.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) we... more Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) were developed to aid patient triage. However, research focusing on the interaction between decision support systems and human experts is lacking. Methods Thirty-two physicians were recruited to rate the survival probability of 59 critically ill patients by means of chart review. Subsequently, one of two artificial intelligence systems advised the physician of a computed survival probability. However, only one of these systems explained the reasons behind its decision-making. In the third step, physicians reviewed the chart once again to determine the final survival probability rating. We hypothesized that an explaining system would exhibit a higher impact on the physicians' second rating (i.e., higher weight-on-advice). Results The survival probability rating given by the physician after receiving advice from the clinical decision support system was a median of 4 percentage points closer to the advice than the initial rating. Weight-on-advice was not significantly different (p = 0.115) between the two systems (with vs without explanation for its decision). Additionally, weight-on-advice showed no difference according to time of day or between board-qualified and not yet boardqualified physicians. Self-reported post-experiment overall trust was awarded a median of 4 out of 10 points. When asked after the conclusion of the experiment, overall trust was 5.5/10 (non-explaining median 4 (IQR 3.5-5.5), explaining median 7 (IQR 5.5-7.5), p = 0.007). Conclusions Although overall trust in the models was low, the median (IQR) weight-on-advice was high (0.33 (0.0-0.56)) and in line with published literature on expert advice. In contrast to the hypothesis, weight-on-advice was comparable between the explaining and non-explaining systems. In 30% of cases, weight-on-advice was 0, meaning the physician did not change their rating. The median of the remaining weight-on-advice values was 50%, suggesting that physicians either dismissed the recommendation or employed a "meeting halfway" approach. Newer technologies, such as clinical reasoning systems, may be able to augment the decision process rather than simply presenting unexplained bias.

Der Gesetzgeber hat in den letzten Jahren zunehmend rechtliche Instrumente geschaffen, damit Pati... more Der Gesetzgeber hat in den letzten Jahren zunehmend rechtliche Instrumente geschaffen, damit PatientInnen auch antizipiert Behandlungsentscheidungen treffen konnen. Jegliche Instrumente dieses sog advance care planning, also der vorausschauenden Gesundheitsplanung erfolgen auf Grundlage eines strukturierten Prozesses, fur welchen spezifische rechtliche Bestimmungen, medizinische Indikation, und der PatientInnenwille in Form eines informed consent die Grundlage bilden.

International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2023

Background and objective To improve the currently low conviction rate in cases of child abuse a f... more Background and objective
To improve the currently low conviction rate in cases of child abuse a forensic examination center for children and adolescents (FOKUS) was established in Vienna, Austria. Besides a state of the art treatment combined with forensic documentation, one of FOKUS’ key goals is to identify potential areas for improvements within the process legal proceedings in cases of child abuse through constant scientific monitoring. The accompanying study at hand includes all patients referred to FOKUS within a two year timeframe (n = 233), monitoring their progression from first contact with the medical professionals from FOKUS to the end of criminal proceedings. A detailed analysis of case files was performed in those cases that were reported to the legal authorities by the clinicians of FOKUS (n = 87). Aim of the study is to investigate which factors contribute to the initiation of legal proceedings and a successful conviction.

Results
Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that main proceedings were opened more often in cases where the offender was an adult (p < 0.001) or admitted his guilt (p < 0.001) and if digital traces were available (p = 0.001) or trial support (p = 0.024) present. Furthermore, the combined occurrence of medical documentation and victim disclosure was related to a higher probability of opening main trials.

Conclusion
These findings underline how challenging the successful persecution of an offender in cases of child abuse is.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) we... more Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) were developed to aid patient triage. However, research focusing on the interaction between decision support systems and human experts is lacking. Methods Thirty-two physicians were recruited to rate the survival probability of 59 critically ill patients by means of chart review. Subsequently, one of two artificial intelligence systems advised the physician of a computed survival probability. However, only one of these systems explained the reasons behind its decision-making. In the third step, physicians reviewed the chart once again to determine the final survival probability rating. We hypothesized that an explaining system would exhibit a higher impact on the physicians' second rating (i.e., higher weight-on-advice). Results The survival probability rating given by the physician after receiving advice from the clinical decision support system was a median of 4 percentage points closer to the advice than the initial rating. Weight-on-advice was not significantly different (p = 0.115) between the two systems (with vs without explanation for its decision). Additionally, weight-on-advice showed no difference according to time of day or between board-qualified and not yet boardqualified physicians. Self-reported post-experiment overall trust was awarded a median of 4 out of 10 points. When asked after the conclusion of the experiment, overall trust was 5.5/10 (non-explaining median 4 (IQR 3.5-5.5), explaining median 7 (IQR 5.5-7.5), p = 0.007). Conclusions Although overall trust in the models was low, the median (IQR) weight-on-advice was high (0.33 (0.0-0.56)) and in line with published literature on expert advice. In contrast to the hypothesis, weight-on-advice was comparable between the explaining and non-explaining systems. In 30% of cases, weight-on-advice was 0, meaning the physician did not change their rating. The median of the remaining weight-on-advice values was 50%, suggesting that physicians either dismissed the recommendation or employed a "meeting halfway" approach. Newer technologies, such as clinical reasoning systems, may be able to augment the decision process rather than simply presenting unexplained bias.

Der Gesetzgeber hat in den letzten Jahren zunehmend rechtliche Instrumente geschaffen, damit Pati... more Der Gesetzgeber hat in den letzten Jahren zunehmend rechtliche Instrumente geschaffen, damit PatientInnen auch antizipiert Behandlungsentscheidungen treffen konnen. Jegliche Instrumente dieses sog advance care planning, also der vorausschauenden Gesundheitsplanung erfolgen auf Grundlage eines strukturierten Prozesses, fur welchen spezifische rechtliche Bestimmungen, medizinische Indikation, und der PatientInnenwille in Form eines informed consent die Grundlage bilden.