ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2017
Predicting neutropenia risk in patients with cancer using electronic data.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Affecting Delayed Recovery from Neutropenia in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel.Journal of Cancer · 2025Article
- Let It Grow: The Role of Growth Factors in Managing Chemotherapy-Induced Cytopenia.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Can MASCC and CISNE scores predict delays of lung cancer chemotherapy after febrile neutropenia?Thoracic cancer · 2022Article
- Personalized cancer supportive care in COVID-19 era.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2020Article
- Change in Body Weight and Serum Albumin Levels in Febrile Neutropenic Lung Cancer Patients.Asian/Pacific Island nursing journal · 2020Article
- Value of incorporating newly identified risk factors into risk prediction for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
- Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia as a Prognostic and Predictive Marker of Outcomes in Solid-Tumor Patients.Drugs · 2018Review
- SemEHR: A general-purpose semantic search system to surface semantic data from clinical notes for tailored care, trial recruitment, and clinical research.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Article
- Translational Education.Biomedicine hubArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesClinical guidelines recommending the use of myeloid growth factors are largely based on the prescribed chemotherapy regimen. The guidelines suggest that oncologists consider patient-specific characteristics when prescribing granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis; however, a mechanism to quantify individual patient risk is lacking. Readily available electronic health record (EHR) data can provide patient-specific information needed for individualized neutropenia risk estimation. An evidence-based, individualized neutropenia risk estimation algorithm has been developed. This study evaluated the automated extraction of EHR chemotherapy treatment data and externally validated the neutropenia risk prediction model. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective cohort of adult patients with newly diagnosed breast, colorectal, lung, lymphoid, or ovarian cancer who received the first cycle of a cytotoxic chemotherapy regimen from 2008 to 2013 were recruited from a single cancer clinic. Electronically extracted EHR chemotherapy treatment data were validated by chart review. Neutropenia risk stratification was conducted and risk model performance was assessed using calibration and discrimination.
resultsChemotherapy treatment data electronically extracted from the EHR were verified by chart review. The neutropenia risk prediction tool classified 126 patients (57%) as being low risk for febrile neutropenia, 44 (20%) as intermediate risk, and 51 (23%) as high risk. The model was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test = 0.24). Discrimination was adequate and slightly less than in the original internal validation (c-statistic 0.75 vs 0.81).
conclusionChemotherapy treatment data were electronically extracted from the EHR successfully. The individualized neutropenia risk prediction model performed well in our retrospective external cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.