Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26148751›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

Predictability Bounds of Electronic Health Records.

Dominik Dahlem, Diego Maniloff, Carlo Ratti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Dominik DahlemIBM Research-Ireland, Dublin 15, Ireland.
Diego ManiloffSenseable City Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
Carlo RattiSenseable City Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to intervene in disease progression given a person's disease history has the potential to solve one of society's most pressing issues: advancing health care delivery and reducing its cost. Controlling disease progression is inherently associated with the ability to predict possible future diseases given a patient's medical history. We invoke an information-theoretic methodology to quantify the level of predictability inherent in disease histories of a large electronic health records dataset with over half a million patients. In our analysis, we progress from zeroth order through temporal informed statistics, both from an individual patient's standpoint and also considering the collective effects. Our findings confirm our intuition that knowledge of common disease progressions results in higher predictability bounds than treating disease histories independently. We complement this result by showing the point at which the temporal dependence structure vanishes with increasing orders of the time-correlated statistic. Surprisingly, we also show that shuffling individual disease histories only marginally degrades the predictability bounds. This apparent contradiction with respect to the importance of time-ordered information is indicative of the complexities involved in capturing the health-care process and the difficulties associated with utilising this information in universal prediction algorithms.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsAlgorithmsHumans

Identifiers

PMID26148751
PMCPMC4493571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.