ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2018
Applying a "Big Data" Literature System to Recommend Antihypertensive Drugs for Hypertension Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Big Data" Approaches for Prevention of the Metabolic Syndrome.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The explosive increase in medical literature has changed therapeutic strategies, but it is challenging for physicians to keep up-to-date on the medical literature. Scientific literature data mining on a large-scale of can be used to refresh physician knowledge and better improve the quality of disease treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS This paper reports on a reformulated version of a data mining method called MedRank, which is a network-based algorithm that ranks therapy for a target disease based on the MEDLINE literature database. MedRank algorithm input for this study was a clear definition of the disease model; the algorithm output was the accurate recommendation of antihypertensive drugs. Hypertension with diabetes mellitus was chosen as the input disease model. The ranking output of antihypertensive drugs are based on the Joint National Committee (JNC) guidelines, one through eight, and the publication dates, ≤1977, ≤1980, ≤1984, ≤1988, ≤1993, ≤1997, ≤2003, and ≤2013. The McNemar's test was used to evaluate the efficacy of MedRank based on specific JNC guidelines. RESULTS The ranking order of antihypertensive drugs changed with the date of the published literature, and the MedRank algorithm drug recommendations had excellent consistency with the JNC guidelines in 2013 (P=1.00 from McNemar's test, Kappa=0.78, P=1.00). Moreover, the Kappa index increased over time. Sensitivity was better than specificity for MedRank; in addition, sensitivity was maintained at a high level, and specificity increased from 1997 to 2013. CONCLUSIONS The use of MedRank in ranking medical literature on hypertension with diabetes mellitus in our study suggests possible application in clinical practice; it is a potential method for supporting antihypertensive drug-prescription decisions.
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.