Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30169498›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Machine learning models in electronic health records can outperform conventional survival models for predicting patient mortality in coronary artery disease.

Andrew J Steele, Spiros C Denaxas, Anoop D Shah, Harry Hemingway, Nicholas M Luscombe

Abstract readComparative Study
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 104 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

104 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Machine learning models for predicting response to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Andrew J SteeleThe Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6836-5925
Spiros C DenaxasFarr Institute of Health Informatics Research, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Anoop D ShahFarr Institute of Health Informatics Research, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Harry HemingwayFarr Institute of Health Informatics Research, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Nicholas M LuscombeThe Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Arthritis Research UKBritish Heart FoundationChief Scientist Office (UK)Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10314Medical Research Council G0902393/99558Medical Research Council K006584/1Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1Medical Research Council MR/L016311/1Wellcome Trust FC001110Wellcome Trust WT 086091/Z/08/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prognostic modelling is important in clinical practice and epidemiology for patient management and research. Electronic health records (EHR) provide large quantities of data for such models, but conventional epidemiological approaches require significant researcher time to implement. Expert selection of variables, fine-tuning of variable transformations and interactions, and imputing missing values are time-consuming and could bias subsequent analysis, particularly given that missingness in EHR is both high, and may carry meaning. Using a cohort of 80,000 patients from the CALIBER programme, we compared traditional modelling and machine-learning approaches in EHR. First, we used Cox models and random survival forests with and without imputation on 27 expert-selected, preprocessed variables to predict all-cause mortality. We then used Cox models, random forests and elastic net regression on an extended dataset with 586 variables to build prognostic models and identify novel prognostic factors without prior expert input. We observed that data-driven models used on an extended dataset can outperform conventional models for prognosis, without data preprocessing or imputing missing values. An elastic net Cox regression based with 586 unimputed variables with continuous values discretised achieved a C-index of 0.801 (bootstrapped 95% CI 0.799 to 0.802), compared to 0.793 (0.791 to 0.794) for a traditional Cox model comprising 27 expert-selected variables with imputation for missing values. We also found that data-driven models allow identification of novel prognostic variables; that the absence of values for particular variables carries meaning, and can have significant implications for prognosis; and that variables often have a nonlinear association with mortality, which discretised Cox models and random forests can elucidate. This demonstrates that machine-learning approaches applied to raw EHR data can be used to build models for use in research and clinical practice, and identify novel predictive variables and their effects to inform future research.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsMachine LearningSurvival AnalysisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesCoronary Artery DiseaseData Interpretation, StatisticalDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID30169498
PMCPMC6118376

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.