Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32810028›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2021

Can Machine Learning Help Identify Patients at Risk for Recurrent Sexually Transmitted Infections?

Heather R Elder, Susan Gruber, Sarah J Willis, Noelle Cocoros, Myfanwy Callahan, Elaine W Flagg, Michael Klompas, Katherine K Hsu

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Determinants and prediction ofFrontiers in public health · 2022
    Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Heather R ElderFrom the Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston.
Susan GruberPutnam Data Sciences, LLC, Cambridge.
Sarah J Willis
Noelle CocorosDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute.
Myfanwy CallahanAtrius Health, Boston, MA.
Elaine W FlaggDivision of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Michael Klompas
Katherine K Hsu
Massachusetts Department of Public Health · USBoston University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · USNational Center for HIV/AIDS Viral Hepatitis STD and TB Prevention · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA substantial fraction of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) occur in patients who have previously been treated for an STI. We assessed whether routine electronic health record (EHR) data can predict which patients presenting with an incident STI are at greatest risk for additional STIs in the next 1 to 2 years.

methodsWe used structured EHR data on patients 15 years or older who acquired an incident STI diagnosis in 2008 to 2015 in eastern Massachusetts. We applied machine learning algorithms to model risk of acquiring ≥1 or ≥2 additional STIs diagnoses within 365 or 730 days after the initial diagnosis using more than 180 different EHR variables. We performed sensitivity analysis incorporating state health department surveillance data to assess whether improving the accuracy of identifying STI cases improved algorithm performance.

resultsWe identified 8723 incident episodes of laboratory-confirmed gonorrhea, chlamydia, or syphilis. Bayesian Additive Regression Trees, the best-performing algorithm of any single method, had a cross-validated area under the receiver operating curve of 0.75. Receiver operating curves for this algorithm showed a poor balance between sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). A predictive probability threshold with a sensitivity of 91.5% had a corresponding PPV of 3.9%. A higher threshold with a PPV of 29.5% had a sensitivity of 11.7%. Attempting to improve the classification of patients with and without repeat STIs diagnoses by incorporating health department surveillance data had minimal impact on cross-validated area under the receiver operating curve.

conclusionsMachine algorithms using structured EHR data did not differentiate well between patients with and without repeat STIs diagnosis. Alternative strategies, able to account for sociobehavioral characteristics, could be explored.

Indexed as

Chlamydia InfectionsGonorrheaHIV InfectionsSexually Transmitted DiseasesSyphilisBayes TheoremHumansMachine LearningMassachusetts

Identifiers

PMID32810028
PMCPMC10949112
OpenAlexW3052200507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.