Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30417258›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2019

Applying machine learning to continuously monitored physiological data.

Barret Rush, Leo Anthony Celi, David J Stone

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. In limbo: Physiological monitoring of emergency department boarders.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Artificial intelligence assisted acute patient journey.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Barret RushDivision of Critical Care Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard Sreet, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada. bar890@mail.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9201-8352
Leo Anthony CeliLaboratory for Computational Physiology, MIT Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
David J StoneDepartments of Anesthesiology and Neurosurgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA.

Funding

Critical Care Informatics: Ethical considerations around the use and sharing of health-related dataR01EB017205 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI CELI, LEO ANTHONY G, MARK, ROGER GREENWOOD · 2014 to 2021
$3.8M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017205
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of machine learning (ML) in healthcare has enormous potential for improving disease detection, clinical decision support, and workflow efficiencies. In this commentary, we review published and potential applications for the use of ML for monitoring within the hospital environment. We present use cases as well as several questions regarding the application of ML to the analysis of the vast amount of complex data that clinicians must interpret in the realm of continuous physiological monitoring. ML, especially employed in bidirectional conjunction with electronic health record data, has the potential to extract much more useful information out of this currently under-analyzed data source from a population level. As a data driven entity, ML is dependent on copious, high quality input data so that error can be introduced by low quality data sources. At present, while ML is being studied in hybrid formulations along with static expert systems for monitoring applications, it is not yet actively incorporated in the formal artificial learning sense of an algorithm constantly learning and updating its rules without external intervention. Finally, innovations in monitoring, including those supported by ML, will pose regulatory and medico-legal challenges, as well as questions regarding precisely how to incorporate these features into clinical care and medical education. Rigorous evaluation of ML techniques compared to traditional methods or other AI methods will be required to validate the algorithms developed with consideration of database limitations and potential learning errors. Demonstration of value on processes and outcomes will be necessary to support the use of ML as a feature in monitoring system development: Future research is needed to evaluate all AI based programs before clinical implementation in non-research settings.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAdultAlgorithmsArrhythmias, CardiacAtrial FibrillationClinical AlarmsCritical CareDatabases, FactualDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDeliriumElectronic Health RecordsExpert SystemsHumansIntensive Care UnitsMonitoring, PhysiologicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicArtificial intelligenceIntensive careMachine learningMonitoringPatient monitoringPhysiological

Identifiers

PMID30417258
PMCPMC6511324

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.