Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31905452›Full record

ArticleNeurospine2019

Applications of Machine Learning Using Electronic Medical Records in Spine Surgery.

John T Schwartz, Michael Gao, Eric A Geng, Kush S Mody, Christopher M Mikhail, Samuel K Cho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurospine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

6 authors.

John T SchwartzDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Michael GaoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Eric A GengDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Kush S ModyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Christopher M MikhailDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Samuel K ChoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Developments in machine learning in recent years have precipitated a surge in research on the applications of artificial intelligence within medicine. Machine learning algorithms are beginning to impact medicine broadly, and the field of spine surgery is no exception. Electronic medical records are a key source of medical data that can be leveraged for the creation of clinically valuable machine learning algorithms. This review examines the current state of machine learning using electronic medical records as it applies to spine surgery. Studies across the electronic medical record data domains of imaging, text, and structured data are reviewed. Discussed applications include clinical prognostication, preoperative planning, diagnostics, and dynamic clinical assistance, among others. The limitations and future challenges for machine learning research using electronic medical records are also discussed.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDeep learningElectronic medical recordsMachine learningSpine surgery

Identifiers

PMID31905452
PMCPMC6945000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.