Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31209213›Full record

ArticleScientific data2019

Multitask learning and benchmarking with clinical time series data.

Hrayr Harutyunyan, Hrant Khachatrian, David C Kale, Greg Ver Steeg, Aram Galstyan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 219 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
219citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

219 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

159 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.

Hrayr HarutyunyanUSC Information Sciences Institute, Marina del Rey, California, 90292, United States of America.
Hrant KhachatrianYerevaNN, Yerevan, 0025, Armenia. hrant@yerevann.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1544-5649
David C KaleUSC Information Sciences Institute, Marina del Rey, California, 90292, United States of America.
Greg Ver SteegUSC Information Sciences Institute, Marina del Rey, California, 90292, United States of America.
Aram GalstyanUSC Information Sciences Institute, Marina del Rey, California, 90292, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health care is one of the most exciting frontiers in data mining and machine learning. Successful adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) created an explosion in digital clinical data available for analysis, but progress in machine learning for healthcare research has been difficult to measure because of the absence of publicly available benchmark data sets. To address this problem, we propose four clinical prediction benchmarks using data derived from the publicly available Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-III) database. These tasks cover a range of clinical problems including modeling risk of mortality, forecasting length of stay, detecting physiologic decline, and phenotype classification. We propose strong linear and neural baselines for all four tasks and evaluate the effect of deep supervision, multitask training and data-specific architectural modifications on the performance of neural models.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingElectronic Health RecordsMachine LearningDatabases, FactualData MiningHumans

Identifiers

PMID31209213
PMCPMC6572845

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.