ArticlePloS one2019
Applications of machine learning in decision analysis for dose management for dofetilide.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Data-driven decision making in patient management: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of dusting and fragmentation methods in the flexible ureteroscopic treatment of kidney lower calyx stones.Urolithiasis · 2022Trial
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular medicine: a practical guide for clinicians and researchers.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular pharmacotherapy: applications and perspectives.European heart journal · 2025Review
- Strategies and Considerations for Safe Reinforcement Learning in Programming Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.Medical research archives · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in atrial fibrillation: emerging applications, research directions and ethical considerations.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation: A Review.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- The Application of Artificial Intelligence in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: From Detection to Treatment.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Cardiology.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Machine Learning Analysis of RNA-seq Data for Diagnostic and Prognostic Prediction of Colon Cancer.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Can additional variables be used to predict stone-free rates following retrograde intrarenal surgery? Anticoagulants and parenchyma thickness: a detailed examination.Urolithiasis · 2023Article
- Interpretable Machine Learning Prediction of Drug-Induced QT Prolongation: Electronic Health Record Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Qualitative Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support System to Guide Rhythm Management of Atrial Fibrillation: Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence for the detection, prediction, and management of atrial fibrillation.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2022Review
- Big Data in electrophysiology.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2022Review
- Artificial intelligence-enhanced electrocardiography in cardiovascular disease management.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2021Review
- How machine learning is impacting research in atrial fibrillation: implications for risk prediction and future management.Cardiovascular research · 2021Review
- Emerging approaches to polypharmacy among older adults.Nature aging · 2021Review
- A machine learning approach to personalized dose adjustment of lamotrigine using noninvasive clinical parameters.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Machine Learning and the Future of Cardiovascular Care: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.