Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31390040›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Development and Performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Result Forecast Model (PERFORM) for Computed Tomography Clinical Decision Support.

Imon Banerjee, Miji Sofela, Jaden Yang, Jonathan H Chen, Nigam H Shah, Robyn Ball, Alvin I Mushlin, Manisha Desai, Joseph Bledsoe, Timothy Amrhein and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 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. Artificial intelligence for early diagnosis in emergency department.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. The Role of Non-invasive Tests in Pulmonary Embolism.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Graph-based Fusion Modeling and Explanation for Disease Trajectory Prediction.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2022
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors.

Imon BanerjeeDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Miji SofelaDuke University Health System, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Jaden YangQuantitative Science Unit, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Jonathan H ChenDepartment of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics), Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Nigam H ShahDepartment of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics), Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Robyn BallQuantitative Science Unit, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Alvin I MushlinDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Manisha DesaiQuantitative Science Unit, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Joseph BledsoeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Timothy AmrheinDepartment of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Daniel L RubinDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Roham ZamanianDepartment of Medicine, Med/Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Matthew P LungrenDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Funding

Stanford Center for Clinical & Translational Education and Research (Spectrum)UL1TR003142 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI O'HARA, RUTH M · 2019 to 2023
$45.0M
Spectrum Stanford Center for clinical and Translational Research and EducationUL1TR001085 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CULLEN, MARK RICHARD, GREENBERG, HARRY BERNARD · 2013 to 2017
$37.1M
Deep Learning for Pulmonary Embolism Imaging Decision Support: A Multi-institutional CollaborationR01LM012966 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SHAH, NIGAM H · 2018 to 2021
$1.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001085NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003142NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012966
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening clinical problem, and computed tomographic imaging is the standard for diagnosis. Clinical decision support rules based on PE risk-scoring models have been developed to compute pretest probability but are underused and tend to underperform in practice, leading to persistent overuse of CT imaging for PE. Objective: To develop a machine learning model to generate a patient-specific risk score for PE by analyzing longitudinal clinical data as clinical decision support for patients referred for CT imaging for PE. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic study, the proposed workflow for the machine learning model, the Pulmonary Embolism Result Forecast Model (PERFORM), transforms raw electronic medical record (EMR) data into temporal feature vectors and develops a decision analytical model targeted toward adult patients referred for CT imaging for PE. The model was tested on holdout patient EMR data from 2 large, academic medical practices. A total of 3397 annotated CT imaging examinations for PE from 3214 unique patients seen at Stanford University hospitals and clinics were used for training and validation. The models were externally validated on 240 unique patients seen at Duke University Medical Center. The comparison with clinical scoring systems was done on randomly selected 100 outpatient samples from Stanford University hospitals and clinics and 101 outpatient samples from Duke University Medical Center. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prediction performance of diagnosing acute PE was evaluated using ElasticNet, artificial neural networks, and other machine learning approaches on holdout data sets from both institutions, and performance of models was measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: Of the 3214 patients included in the study, 1704 (53.0%) were women from Stanford University hospitals and clinics; mean (SD) age was 60.53 (19.43) years. The 240 patients from Duke University Medical Center used for validation included 132 women (55.0%); mean (SD) age was 70.2 (14.2) years. In the samples for clinical scoring system comparisons, the 100 outpatients from Stanford University hospitals and clinics included 67 women (67.0%); mean (SD) age was 57.74 (19.87) years, and the 101 patients from Duke University Medical Center included 59 women (58.4%); mean (SD) age was 73.06 (15.3) years. The best-performing model achieved an AUROC performance of predicting a positive PE study of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.91) on intrainstitutional holdout data with an AUROC of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.72) on an external data set from Duke University Medical Center; superior AUROC performance and cross-institutional generalization of the model of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.87) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73-0.82), respectively, were noted on holdout outpatient populations from both intrainstitutional and extrainstitutional data. Conclusions and Relevance: The machine learning model, PERFORM, may consider multitudes of applicable patient-specific risk factors and dependencies to arrive at a PE risk prediction that generalizes to new population distributions. This approach might be used as an automated clinical decision-support tool for patients referred for CT PE imaging to improve CT use.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDecision Support Systems, ClinicalElectronic Health RecordsHumansMiddle AgedPulmonary EmbolismReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID31390040
PMCPMC6686780

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.