Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28756159›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2017

Automatic identification of high impact articles in PubMed to support clinical decision making.

Jiantao Bian, Mohammad Amin Morid, Siddhartha Jonnalagadda, Gang Luo, Guilherme Del Fiol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

5 authors.

Jiantao BianDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Mohammad Amin MoridDepartment of Operations and Information Systems, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Siddhartha JonnalagaddaMicrosoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA, USA.
Gang LuoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Guilherme Del FiolDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Electronic address: guilherme.delfiol@utah.edu.

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MEDICAL INFORMATICS TRAININGT15LM007124 · NLM · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI Karen Louise Eilbeck · 1997 to 2026
$22.0M
Meeting Clinicians' Information Needs with Highly Tailored Knowledge SummariesR01LM011416 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI DEL FIOL, GUILHERME · 2013 to 2016
$1.3M
Improving the Efficiency and Efficacy in Authoring Essential Clinical FAQsR00LM011389 · NLM · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI JONNALAGADDA, SIDDHARTHA REDDY · 2013 to 2015
$665k
NLM NIH HHS R00 LM011389NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011416NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007124
6 · The paper itself

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

BibliometricsClinical Decision-MakingEvidence-Based MedicineMachine LearningPubMedAlgorithmsHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMEDLINEMetadataSocial Media

Identifiers

PMID28756159
PMCPMC5583030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.