Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31791325›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Identifying undetected dementia in UK primary care patients: a retrospective case-control study comparing machine-learning and standard epidemiological approaches.

Elizabeth Ford, Philip Rooney, Seb Oliver, Richard Hoile, Peter Hurley, Sube Banerjee, Harm van Marwijk, Jackie Cassell

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Use of Population-Level Administrative Data in Developmental Science.Annual review of developmental psychology · 2022
    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

8 authors.

Elizabeth FordDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Watson Building, Village Way, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9PH, England. e.m.ford@bsms.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5613-8509
Philip RooneyDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RQ, England.
Seb OliverDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RQ, England.
Richard HoileDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Watson Building, Village Way, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9PH, England.
Peter HurleyDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RQ, England.
Sube BanerjeeFaculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, England.
Harm van MarwijkDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Watson Building, Village Way, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9PH, England.
Jackie CassellDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Watson Building, Village Way, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9PH, England.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentifying dementia early in time, using real world data, is a public health challenge. As only two-thirds of people with dementia now ultimately receive a formal diagnosis in United Kingdom health systems and many receive it late in the disease process, there is ample room for improvement. The policy of the UK government and National Health Service (NHS) is to increase rates of timely dementia diagnosis. We used data from general practice (GP) patient records to create a machine-learning model to identify patients who have or who are developing dementia, but are currently undetected as having the condition by the GP.

methodsWe used electronic patient records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Using a case-control design, we selected patients aged >65y with a diagnosis of dementia (cases) and matched them 1:1 by sex and age to patients with no evidence of dementia (controls). We developed a list of 70 clinical entities related to the onset of dementia and recorded in the 5 years before diagnosis. After creating binary features, we trialled machine learning classifiers to discriminate between cases and controls (logistic regression, naïve Bayes, support vector machines, random forest and neural networks). We examined the most important features contributing to discrimination.

resultsThe final analysis included data on 93,120 patients, with a median age of 82.6 years; 64.8% were female. The naïve Bayes model performed least well. The logistic regression, support vector machine, neural network and random forest performed very similarly with an AUROC of 0.74. The top features retained in the logistic regression model were disorientation and wandering, behaviour change, schizophrenia, self-neglect, and difficulty managing.

conclusionsOur model could aid GPs or health service planners with the early detection of dementia. Future work could improve the model by exploring the longitudinal nature of patient data and modelling decline in function over time.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectronic Health RecordsMachine LearningAgedBayes TheoremCase-Control StudiesComputational BiologyDementiaFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleNeural Networks, ComputerPrimary Health CareRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentDementiaDiagnosisEarly detectionElectronic health recordsGeneral practiceMachine learningPredictionPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID31791325
PMCPMC6889642

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.