Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32568089›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020

Toward Optimal Heparin Dosing by Comparing Multiple Machine Learning Methods: Retrospective Study.

Longxiang Su, Chun Liu, Dongkai Li, Jie He, Fanglan Zheng, Huizhen Jiang, Hao Wang, Mengchun Gong, Na Hong, Weiguo Zhu and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Longxiang Su *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0942-2870
Chun Liu *Digital China Health Technologies Co Ltd, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2337-2264
Dongkai Li *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4487-0927
Jie He *Digital China Health Technologies Co Ltd, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4454-1784
Fanglan ZhengDigital China Health Technologies Co Ltd, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6963-3015
Huizhen JiangDepartment of Information Management, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8869-1237
Hao WangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7776-0882
Mengchun GongDigital China Health Technologies Co Ltd, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8197-6643
Na HongDigital China Health Technologies Co Ltd, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6798-1761
Weiguo ZhuDepartment of General Internal Medicine/Department of Information Management, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4215-5839
Yun LongDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9196-4651
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNDigital China Health (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

dosingheparinintensive care unitmachine learningoptimization

Identifiers

PMID32568089
PMCPMC7338927
OpenAlexW3016811362

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.