Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21917512›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2011

Artificial intelligence techniques applied to the development of a decision-support system for diagnosing celiac disease.

Josceli Maria Tenório, Anderson Diniz Hummel, Frederico Molina Cohrs, Vera Lucia Sdepanian, Ivan Torres Pisa, Heimar de Fátima Marin

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Advancing healthcare: the role and impact of AI and foundation models.American journal of translational research · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Pilot evaluation of sensitive data segmentation technology for privacy.International journal of medical informatics · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Josceli Maria TenórioGraduate Program on Health Informatics, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil. josceli.tenorio@unifesp.br
Anderson Diniz Hummel
Frederico Molina Cohrs
Vera Lucia Sdepanian
Ivan Torres Pisa
Heimar de Fátima Marin

Funding

Global Health Informatics for Cancer ResearchD43TW007015 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI OHNO-MACHADO, LUCILA · 2004 to 2013
$2.2M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW007015FIC NIH HHS D43TW007015-06 BRIGHT
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCeliac disease (CD) is a difficult-to-diagnose condition because of its multiple clinical presentations and symptoms shared with other diseases. Gold-standard diagnostic confirmation of suspected CD is achieved by biopsying the small intestine.

objectiveTo develop a clinical decision-support system (CDSS) integrated with an automated classifier to recognize CD cases, by selecting from experimental models developed using intelligence artificial techniques.

methodsA web-based system was designed for constructing a retrospective database that included 178 clinical cases for training. Tests were run on 270 automated classifiers available in Weka 3.6.1 using five artificial intelligence techniques, namely decision trees, Bayesian inference, k-nearest neighbor algorithm, support vector machines and artificial neural networks. The parameters evaluated were accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve (AUC). AUC was used as a criterion for selecting the CDSS algorithm. A testing database was constructed including 38 clinical CD cases for CDSS evaluation. The diagnoses suggested by CDSS were compared with those made by physicians during patient consultations.

resultsThe most accurate method during the training phase was the averaged one-dependence estimator (AODE) algorithm (a Bayesian classifier), which showed accuracy 80.0%, sensitivity 0.78, specificity 0.80 and AUC 0.84. This classifier was integrated into the web-based decision-support system. The gold-standard validation of CDSS achieved accuracy of 84.2% and k=0.68 (p<0.0001) with good agreement. The same accuracy was achieved in the comparison between the physician's diagnostic impression and the gold standard k=0. 64 (p<0.0001). There was moderate agreement between the physician's diagnostic impression and CDSS k=0.46 (p=0.0008).

conclusionsThe study results suggest that CDSS could be used to help in diagnosing CD, since the algorithm tested achieved excellent accuracy in differentiating possible positive from negative CD diagnoses. This study may contribute towards developing of a computer-assisted environment to support CD diagnosis.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalAlgorithmsAutomationCeliac DiseaseHumansROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID21917512
PMCPMC3768292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.