ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2017
Automatic identification of high impact articles in PubMed to support clinical decision making.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Boosting efficiency in a clinical literature surveillance system with LightGBM.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Cover papers of top journals are reliable source for emerging topics detection: a machine learning based prediction framework.Scientometrics · 2022Article
- Machine Learning Approaches to Retrieve High-Quality, Clinically Relevant Evidence From the Biomedical Literature: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Review
- Systematic review of the top 10 ranked spine articles in the last 10 years [2011-2021].Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- Automatic identification of recent high impact clinical articles in PubMed to support clinical decision making using time-agnostic features.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2019Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe practice of evidence-based medicine involves integrating the latest best available evidence into patient care decisions. Yet, critical barriers exist for clinicians' retrieval of evidence that is relevant for a particular patient from primary sources such as randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. To help address those barriers, we investigated machine learning algorithms that find clinical studies with high clinical impact from PubMed®.
methodsOur machine learning algorithms use a variety of features including bibliometric features (e.g., citation count), social media attention, journal impact factors, and citation metadata. The algorithms were developed and evaluated with a gold standard composed of 502 high impact clinical studies that are referenced in 11 clinical evidence-based guidelines on the treatment of various diseases. We tested the following hypotheses: (1) our high impact classifier outperforms a state-of-the-art classifier based on citation metadata and citation terms, and PubMed's® relevance sort algorithm; and (2) the performance of our high impact classifier does not decrease significantly after removing proprietary features such as citation count.
resultsThe mean top 20 precision of our high impact classifier was 34% versus 11% for the state-of-the-art classifier and 4% for PubMed's® relevance sort (p=0.009); and the performance of our high impact classifier did not decrease significantly after removing proprietary features (mean top 20 precision=34% vs. 36%; p=0.085).
conclusionThe high impact classifier, using features such as bibliometrics, social media attention and MEDLINE® metadata, outperformed previous approaches and is a promising alternative to identifying high impact studies for clinical decision support.
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.