Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31951272›Full record

Observational studyJAMA network open2020

Assessment of a Machine Learning Model Applied to Harmonized Electronic Health Record Data for the Prediction of Incident Atrial Fibrillation.

Premanand Tiwari, Kathryn L Colborn, Derek E Smith, Fuyong Xing, Debashis Ghosh, Michael A Rosenberg

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Premanand TiwariColorado Center for Personalized Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.
Kathryn L ColbornColorado School of Public Health, Department of Biostatics and Informatics, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora.
Derek E SmithChildren's Hospital Colorado, Cancer Center Biostatistics Core, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado, Aurora.
Fuyong XingColorado School of Public Health, Department of Biostatics and Informatics, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora.
Debashis GhoshColorado School of Public Health, Department of Biostatics and Informatics, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora.
Michael A RosenbergColorado Center for Personalized Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Funding

Genetics of Cardiotoxic Drug ResponseK23HL127296 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI ROSENBERG, MICHAEL A · 2015 to 2020
$932k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL127296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, and its early detection could lead to significant improvements in outcomes through the appropriate prescription of anticoagulation medication. Although a variety of methods exist for screening for AF, a targeted approach, which requires an efficient method for identifying patients at risk, would be preferred. Objective: To examine machine learning approaches applied to electronic health record data that have been harmonized to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model for identifying risk of AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study used data from 2 252 219 individuals cared for in the UCHealth hospital system, which comprises 3 large hospitals in Colorado, from January 1, 2011, to October 1, 2018. Initial analysis was performed in December 2018; follow-up analysis was performed in July 2019. Exposures: All Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model-harmonized electronic health record features, including diagnoses, procedures, medications, age, and sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: Classification of incident AF in designated 6-month intervals, adjudicated retrospectively, based on area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and F1 statistic. Results: Of 2 252 219 individuals (1 225 533 [54.4%] women; mean [SD] age, 42.9 [22.3] years), 28 036 (1.2%) developed incident AF during a designated 6-month interval. The machine learning model that used the 200 most common electronic health record features, including age and sex, and random oversampling with a single-layer, fully connected neural network provided the optimal prediction of 6-month incident AF, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.800 and an F1 score of 0.110. This model performed only slightly better than a more basic logistic regression model composed of known clinical risk factors for AF, which had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.794 and an F1 score of 0.079. Conclusions and Relevance: Machine learning approaches to electronic health record data offer a promising method for improving risk prediction for incident AF, but more work is needed to show improvement beyond standard risk factors.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsMachine LearningAdultAgedAtrial FibrillationFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31951272
PMCPMC6991266

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.