ArticleACM-BCB ... ... : the ... ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine. ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine2016
On Interestingness Measures for Mining Statistically Significant and Novel Clinical Associations from EMRs.
Article in ACM-BCB ... ... : the ... ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine. ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prediction and diagnosis of depression using machine learning with electronic health records data: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Pooled it
- Enhancing the value of meat inspection records for broiler health and welfare surveillance: longitudinal detection of relational patterns.BMC veterinary research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Association rule mining has received significant attention from both the data mining and machine learning communities. While data mining researchers focus more on designing efficient algorithms to mine rules from large datasets, the learning community has explored applications of rule mining to classification. A major problem with rule mining algorithms is the explosion of rules even for moderate sized datasets making it very difficult for end users to identify both statistically significant and potentially novel rules that could lead to interesting new insights and hypotheses. Researchers have proposed many domain independent interestingness measures using which, one can rank the rules and potentially glean useful rules from the top ranked ones. However, these measures have not been fully explored for rule mining in clinical datasets owing to the relatively large sizes of the datasets often encountered in healthcare and also due to limited access to domain experts for review/analysis. In this paper, using an electronic medical record (EMR) dataset of diagnoses and medications from over three million patient visits to the University of Kentucky medical center and affiliated clinics, we conduct a thorough evaluation of dozens of interestingness measures proposed in data mining literature, including some new composite measures. Using cumulative relevance metrics from information retrieval, we compare these interestingness measures against human judgments obtained from a practicing psychiatrist for association rules involving the depressive disorders class as the consequent. Our results not only surface new interesting associations for
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.