ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2019
Automatic identification of recent high impact clinical articles in PubMed to support clinical decision making using time-agnostic features.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research on early warning of renal damage in hypertensive patients based on the stacking strategy.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Cover papers of top journals are reliable source for emerging topics detection: a machine learning based prediction framework.Scientometrics · 2022Article
- Machine Learning Approaches to Retrieve High-Quality, Clinically Relevant Evidence From the Biomedical Literature: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Review
- A High Recall Classifier for Selecting Articles for MEDLINE Indexing.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesFinding recent clinical studies that warrant changes in clinical practice ("high impact" clinical studies) in a timely manner is very challenging. We investigated a machine learning approach to find recent studies with high clinical impact to support clinical decision making and literature surveillance.
methodsTo identify recent studies, we developed our classification model using time-agnostic features that are available as soon as an article is indexed in PubMed®, such as journal impact factor, author count, and study sample size. Using a gold standard of 541 high impact treatment studies referenced in 11 disease management guidelines, we tested the following null hypotheses: (1) the high impact classifier with time-agnostic features (HI-TA) performs equivalently to PubMed's Best Match sort and a MeSH-based Naïve Bayes classifier; and (2) HI-TA performs equivalently to the high impact classifier with both time-agnostic and time-sensitive features (HI-TS) enabled in a previous study. The primary outcome for both hypotheses was mean top 20 precision.
resultsThe differences in mean top 20 precision between HI-TA and three baselines (PubMed's Best Match, a MeSH-based Naïve Bayes classifier, and HI-TS) were not statistically significant (12% vs. 3%, p = 0.101; 12% vs. 11%, p = 0.720; 12% vs. 25%, p = 0.094, respectively). Recall of HI-TA was low (7%).
conclusionHI-TA had equivalent performance to state-of-the-art approaches that depend on time-sensitive features. With the advantage of relying only on time-agnostic features, the proposed approach can be used as an adjunct to help clinicians identify recent high impact clinical studies to support clinical decision-making. However, low recall limits the use of HI-TA for literature surveillance.
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.