ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020
Toward Optimal Heparin Dosing by Comparing Multiple Machine Learning Methods: Retrospective Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline Adherence As An Indicator of the Extent of Antithrombotic Overuse and Underuse: A Systematic Review.Global heart · 2022Pooled it
- Analysis of aPTT predictors after unfractionated heparin administration in intensive care units using machine learning models.PloS one · 2025Article
- Digital Epidemiology of Prescription Drug References on X (Formerly Twitter): Neural Network Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Strategies of Predictive Schemes and Clinical Diagnosis for Prognosis Using MIMIC-III: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Chinese experts' consensus on the application of intensive care big data.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- A Recurrent Neural Network Model for Predicting Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time After Treatment With Heparin: Retrospective Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Predicting Therapeutic Response to Unfractionated Heparin Therapy: Machine Learning Approach.Interactive journal of medical research · 2022Article
- The Effect of Digitization on the Safe Management of Anticoagulants.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
- State of the Art of Machine Learning-Enabled Clinical Decision Support in Intensive Care Units: Literature Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Review
- Early warning of citric acid overdose and timely adjustment of regional citrate anticoagulation based on machine learning methods.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- A Clinical Prediction Model to Predict Heparin Treatment Outcomes and Provide Dosage Recommendations: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Application of Machine Learning in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Settings Using MIMIC Dataset: Systematic Review.Informatics (MDPI) · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeparin is one of the most commonly used medications in intensive care units. In clinical practice, the use of a weight-based heparin dosing nomogram is standard practice for the treatment of thrombosis. Recently, machine learning techniques have dramatically improved the ability of computers to provide clinical decision support and have allowed for the possibility of computer generated, algorithm-based heparin dosing recommendations.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to predict the effects of heparin treatment using machine learning methods to optimize heparin dosing in intensive care units based on the predictions. Patient state predictions were based upon activated partial thromboplastin time in 3 different ranges: subtherapeutic, normal therapeutic, and supratherapeutic, respectively.
methodsRetrospective data from 2 intensive care unit research databases (Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care III, MIMIC-III; e-Intensive Care Unit Collaborative Research Database, eICU) were used for the analysis. Candidate machine learning models (random forest, support vector machine, adaptive boosting, extreme gradient boosting, and shallow neural network) were compared in 3 patient groups to evaluate the classification performance for predicting the subtherapeutic, normal therapeutic, and supratherapeutic patient states. The model results were evaluated using precision, recall, F1 score, and accuracy.
resultsData from the MIMIC-III database (n=2789 patients) and from the eICU database (n=575 patients) were used. In 3-class classification, the shallow neural network algorithm performed the best (F1 scores of 87.26%, 85.98%, and 87.55% for data set 1, 2, and 3, respectively). The shallow neural network algorithm achieved the highest F1 scores within the patient therapeutic state groups: subtherapeutic (data set 1: 79.35%; data set 2: 83.67%; data set 3: 83.33%), normal therapeutic (data set 1: 93.15%; data set 2: 87.76%; data set 3: 84.62%), and supratherapeutic (data set 1: 88.00%; data set 2: 86.54%; data set 3: 95.45%) therapeutic ranges, respectively.
conclusionsThe most appropriate model for predicting the effects of heparin treatment was found by comparing multiple machine learning models and can be used to further guide optimal heparin dosing. Using multicenter intensive care unit data, our study demonstrates the feasibility of predicting the outcomes of heparin treatment using data-driven methods, and thus, how machine learning-based models can be used to optimize and personalize heparin dosing to improve patient safety. Manual analysis and validation suggested that the model outperformed standard practice heparin treatment dosing.
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.