Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30890124›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019

Machine learning in medicine: a practical introduction.

Jenni A M Sidey-Gibbons, Chris J Sidey-Gibbons

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 514 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
514citing papers in PubMed, 14 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

514 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Diagnosis melanoma with artificial intelligence systems: A meta-analysis study and systematic review.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Machine Learning for Predicting Stillbirth: A Systematic Review.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

454 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

2 authors.

Jenni A M Sidey-GibbonsDepartment of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK.
Chris J Sidey-GibbonsDepartment of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, 01225, Massachusetts, USA. cgibbons2@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4732-7305

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2017-10-019HSRD VA CDA 10-019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing visible successes on a wide range of predictive tasks, machine learning techniques are attracting substantial interest from medical researchers and clinicians. We address the need for capacity development in this area by providing a conceptual introduction to machine learning alongside a practical guide to developing and evaluating predictive algorithms using freely-available open source software and public domain data.

methodsWe demonstrate the use of machine learning techniques by developing three predictive models for cancer diagnosis using descriptions of nuclei sampled from breast masses. These algorithms include regularized General Linear Model regression (GLMs), Support Vector Machines (SVMs) with a radial basis function kernel, and single-layer Artificial Neural Networks. The publicly-available dataset describing the breast mass samples (N=683) was randomly split into evaluation (n=456) and validation (n=227) samples. We trained algorithms on data from the evaluation sample before they were used to predict the diagnostic outcome in the validation dataset. We compared the predictions made on the validation datasets with the real-world diagnostic decisions to calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the three models. We explored the use of averaging and voting ensembles to improve predictive performance. We provide a step-by-step guide to developing algorithms using the open-source R statistical programming environment.

resultsThe trained algorithms were able to classify cell nuclei with high accuracy (.94 -.96), sensitivity (.97 -.99), and specificity (.85 -.94). Maximum accuracy (.96) and area under the curve (.97) was achieved using the SVM algorithm. Prediction performance increased marginally (accuracy =.97, sensitivity =.99, specificity =.95) when algorithms were arranged into a voting ensemble.

conclusionsWe use a straightforward example to demonstrate the theory and practice of machine learning for clinicians and medical researchers. The principals which we demonstrate here can be readily applied to other complex tasks including natural language processing and image recognition.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerSupport Vector MachineBreast NeoplasmsDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansSensitivity and SpecificitySoftwareClassificationComputer-assistedDecision makingDiagnosisMedical informaticsProgramming languagesSupervised machine learning

Identifiers

PMID30890124
PMCPMC6425557

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.