Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24551396›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2013

Developing predictive models using electronic medical records: challenges and pitfalls.

Chris Paxton, Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil, Suchi Saria

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05311046 (Biomarker-enhanced Artificial Intelligence Based Pediatric Sepsis Screening Tool Towards Early Recognition and Personalized Therapeutics), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT05311046 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Biomarker-enhanced Artificial Intelligence Based Pediatric Sepsis Screening Tool Towards Early Recognition and Personalized Therapeutics

TypeobservationalSponsorComputer Technology Associates, Inc.Ran2026 to 2029Enrolled12,961ConditionsSepsisArmsPediatric sepsis screening tool (either algorithmic or manual)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Machine learning prediction models in orthopedic surgery: A systematic review in transparent reporting.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Rapid identification of slow healing wounds.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    Trial
  3. Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Early Sepsis Prediction: A Scoping Review.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Early prediction of mortality upon intensive care unit admission.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024
    Article
  8. Transportability of bacterial infection prediction models for critically ill patients.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Performance Drift in a Mortality Prediction Algorithm during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2022
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Chris PaxtonComputer Science Department, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218.
Alexandru Niculescu-MizilNEC Labs America, Princeton, NJ 08540.
Suchi SariaComputer Science Department, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While Electronic Medical Records (EMR) contain detailed records of the patient-clinician encounter - vital signs, laboratory tests, symptoms, caregivers' notes, interventions prescribed and outcomes - developing predictive models from this data is not straightforward. These data contain systematic biases that violate assumptions made by off-the-shelf machine learning algorithms, commonly used in the literature to train predictive models. In this paper, we discuss key issues and subtle pitfalls specific to building predictive models from EMR. We highlight the importance of carefully considering both the special characteristics of EMR as well as the intended clinical use of the predictive model and show that failure to do so could lead to developing models that are less useful in practice. Finally, we describe approaches for training and evaluating models on EMR using early prediction of septic shock as our example application.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsModels, BiologicalPatient CareShock, SepticArea Under CurveArtificial IntelligenceHumansPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID24551396
PMCPMC3900132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.