Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31891645›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Applications of machine learning in decision analysis for dose management for dofetilide.

Andrew E Levy, Minakshi Biswas, Rachel Weber, Khaldoun Tarakji, Mina Chung, Peter A Noseworthy, Christopher Newton-Cheh, Michael A Rosenberg

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Data-driven decision making in patient management: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Cardiology.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Big Data in electrophysiology.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2022
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew E LevyDivision of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9076-9619
Minakshi BiswasDivision of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States of America.
Rachel WeberDivision of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, United States of America.
Khaldoun TarakjiCenter for Atrial Fibrillation, Section of Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, United States of America.
Mina ChungCenter for Atrial Fibrillation, Section of Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, United States of America.
Peter A NoseworthyRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America.
Christopher Newton-ChehCardiovascular Research Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Michael A RosenbergDivision of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6708-1648
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USCleveland Clinic · USColorado School of Public Health · USHarvard University · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

POSTGRADUATE TRAINING IN CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCHT32HL007822 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI BUTTRICK, PETER N., LEINWAND, LESLIE ANNE · 1996 to 2023
$6.2M
Influence of genetic variation on QT prolongation over the lifecourse and as a cardiotoxic drug responseR01HL143070 · NHLBI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI NEWTON-CHEH, CHRISTOPHER HOLMES · 2018 to 2021
$3.0M
Genetics of Cardiotoxic Drug ResponseK23HL127296 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI ROSENBERG, MICHAEL A · 2015 to 2020
$932k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL127296NHLBI NIH HHS L30 HL123413NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL143070NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007822
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInitiation of the antiarrhythmic medication dofetilide requires an FDA-mandated 3 days of telemetry monitoring due to heightened risk of toxicity within this time period. Although a recommended dose management algorithm for dofetilide exists, there is a range of real-world approaches to dosing the medication. METHODS AND

resultsIn this multicenter investigation, clinical data from the Antiarrhythmic Drug Genetic (AADGEN) study was examined for 354 patients undergoing dofetilide initiation. Univariate logistic regression identified a starting dofetilide dose of 500 mcg (OR 5.0, 95%CI 2.5-10.0, p<0.001) and sinus rhythm at the start of dofetilide loading (OR 2.8, 95%CI 1.8-4.2, p<0.001) as strong positive predictors of successful loading. Any dose-adjustment during loading (OR 0.19, 95%CI 0.12-0.31, p<0.001) and a history coronary artery disease (OR 0.33, 95%CI 0.19-0.59, p<0.001) were strong negative predictors of successful dofetilide loading. Based on the observation that any dose adjustment was a significant negative predictor of successful initiation, we applied multiple supervised approaches to attempt to predict the dose adjustment decision, but none of these approaches identified dose adjustments better than a probabilistic guess. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis identified 8 clusters as a reasonable data reduction method. These 8 clusters were then used to define patient states in a tabular reinforcement learning model trained on 80% of dosing decisions. Testing of this model on the remaining 20% of dosing decisions revealed good accuracy of the reinforcement learning model, with only 16/410 (3.9%) instances of disagreement.

conclusionsDose adjustments are a strong determinant of whether patients are able to successfully initiate dofetilide. A reinforcement learning algorithm informed by unsupervised learning was able to predict dosing decisions with 96.1% accuracy. Future studies will apply this algorithm prospectively as a data-driven decision aid.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesMachine LearningAgedAnti-Arrhythmia AgentsDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhenethylaminesSulfonamidesAnti-Arrhythmia AgentsdofetilidePhenethylaminesSulfonamides

Identifiers

PMID31891645
PMCPMC6938356
OpenAlexW2997769210

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.