Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27765959›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the IEEE. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers2016

Machine Learning and Decision Support in Critical Care.

Alistair E W Johnson, Mohammad M Ghassemi, Shamim Nemati, Katherine E Niehaus, David A Clifton, Gari D Clifford

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the IEEE. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 141 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
141citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

141 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Novel displays of patient information in critical care settings: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

81 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alistair E W JohnsonInstitute for Medical Engineering & Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, USA.
Mohammad M GhassemiInstitute for Medical Engineering & Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, USA.
Shamim NematiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University, Atlanta, USA.
Katherine E NiehausInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David A CliftonInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gari D CliffordDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University, Atlanta, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA.
University of Oxford · GBEmory University · US

Funding

Integrating Data, Models, and Reasoning in Critical CareR01EB001659 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI MARK, ROGER GREENWOOD · 2003 to 2012
$9.8M
Research Resource for Complex Physiologic SignalsR01GM104987 · NIGMS · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI GOLDBERGER, ARY LOUIS, MARK, ROGER GREENWOOD · 2012 to 2019
$5.8M
Critical Care Informatics: Ethical considerations around the use and sharing of health-related dataR01EB017205 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI CELI, LEO ANTHONY G, MARK, ROGER GREENWOOD · 2014 to 2021
$3.8M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB001659NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017205NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM104987
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical data management systems typically provide caregiver teams with useful information, derived from large, sometimes highly heterogeneous, data sources that are often changing dynamically. Over the last decade there has been a significant surge in interest in using these data sources, from simply re-using the standard clinical databases for event prediction or decision support, to including dynamic and patient-specific information into clinical monitoring and prediction problems. However, in most cases, commercial clinical databases have been designed to document clinical activity for reporting, liability and billing reasons, rather than for developing new algorithms. With increasing excitement surrounding "secondary use of medical records" and "Big Data" analytics, it is important to understand the limitations of current databases and what needs to change in order to enter an era of "precision medicine." This review article covers many of the issues involved in the collection and preprocessing of critical care data. The three challenges in critical care are considered: compartmentalization, corruption, and complexity. A range of applications addressing these issues are covered, including the modernization of static acuity scoring; on-line patient tracking; personalized prediction and risk assessment; artifact detection; state estimation; and incorporation of multimodal data sources such as genomic and free text data.

Indexed as

Critical carefeature extractionmachine learningsignal processing

Identifiers

PMID27765959
PMCPMC5066876
OpenAlexW788217788

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.