Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29444182›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Towards phenotyping stroke: Leveraging data from a large-scale epidemiological study to detect stroke diagnosis.

Yizhao Ni, Kathleen Alwell, Charles J Moomaw, Daniel Woo, Opeolu Adeoye, Matthew L Flaherty, Simona Ferioli, Jason Mackey, Felipe De Los Rios La Rosa, Sharyl Martini and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Machine learning approaches for electronic health records phenotyping: a methodical review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Yizhao NiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8599-454X
Kathleen AlwellDepartment of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America.
Charles J MoomawDepartment of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America.
Daniel WooDepartment of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America.
Opeolu AdeoyeDepartment of Emergency Medicine and Neurosurgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America.
Matthew L FlahertyDepartment of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America.
Simona FerioliDepartment of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America.
Jason MackeyDepartment of Neurology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America.
Felipe De Los Rios La RosaBaptist Health Neuroscience Center, Miami, Florida, United States of America.
Sharyl MartiniMichael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Pooja KhatriDepartment of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America.
Dawn KleindorferDepartment of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America.
Brett M KisselaDepartment of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America.
University of Cincinnati · USBaptist Health South Florida · USCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USMichael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center · US

Funding

LCenter for Clinical and Translational Science and TrainingUL1TR001425 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI HEUBI, JAMES E., KISSELA, BRETT M · 2015 to 2024
$37.5M
STROKE INCIDENCE AND OUTCOME AMONG BLACKS AND WHITESR01NS030678 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI KISSELA, BRETT M, KLEINDORFER, DAWN O · 1993 to 2024
$26.7M
Better Outcomes for Children: Promoting Excellence in Healthcare Genomics to Inform PolicyU01HG008666 · NHGRI · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI HARLEY, JOHN BARKER · 2015 to 2019
$4.2M
Improving Intensive Care Medication Safety through EHR-basedAlgorithms.R01LM012230 · NLM · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI KIRKENDALL, ERIC STEVEN, MELTON, KRISTIN · 2015 to 2018
$1.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001425NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG008666NIH HHS 1R01LM012230NIH HHS 1U01HG008666NIH HHS R01NS30678NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS030678NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012230
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objective1) To develop a machine learning approach for detecting stroke cases and subtypes from hospitalization data, 2) to assess algorithm performance and predictors on real-world data collected by a large-scale epidemiology study in the US; and 3) to identify directions for future development of high-precision stroke phenotypic signatures. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe utilized 8,131 hospitalization events (ICD-9 codes 430-438) collected from the Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Stroke Study in 2005 and 2010. Detailed information from patients' medical records was abstracted for each event by trained research nurses. By analyzing the broad list of demographic and clinical variables, the machine learning algorithms predicted whether an event was a stroke case and, if so, the stroke subtype. The performance was validated on gold-standard labels adjudicated by stroke physicians, and results were compared with stroke classifications based on ICD-9 discharge codes, as well as labels determined by study nurses.

resultsThe best performing machine learning algorithm achieved a performance of 88.57%/93.81%/92.80%/93.30%/89.84%/98.01% (accuracy/precision/recall/F-measure/area under ROC curve/area under precision-recall curve) on stroke case detection. For detecting stroke subtypes, the algorithm yielded an overall accuracy of 87.39% and greater than 85% precision on individual subtypes. The machine learning algorithms significantly outperformed the ICD-9 method on all measures (P value<0.001). Their performance was comparable to that of study nurses, with better tradeoff between precision and recall. The feature selection uncovered a subset of predictive variables that could facilitate future development of effective stroke phenotyping algorithms. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsBy analyzing a broad array of patient data, the machine learning technologies held promise for improving detection of stroke diagnosis, thus unlocking high statistical power for subsequent genetic and genomic studies.

Indexed as

PhenotypeElectronic Health RecordsHumansStroke

Identifiers

PMID29444182
PMCPMC5812624
OpenAlexW2788675884

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.