Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33084589›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020

AutoScore: A Machine Learning-Based Automatic Clinical Score Generator and Its Application to Mortality Prediction Using Electronic Health Records.

Feng Xie, Bibhas Chakraborty, Marcus Eng Hock Ong, Benjamin Alan Goldstein, Nan Liu

Abstract 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 77 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing 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

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

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

17 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

5 authors.

Feng XieProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0215-667X
Bibhas ChakrabortyProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7366-0478
Marcus Eng Hock OngProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7874-7612
Benjamin Alan GoldsteinProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5261-3632
Nan LiuProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3610-4883

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk scores can be useful in clinical risk stratification and accurate allocations of medical resources, helping health providers improve patient care. Point-based scores are more understandable and explainable than other complex models and are now widely used in clinical decision making. However, the development of the risk scoring model is nontrivial and has not yet been systematically presented, with few studies investigating methods of clinical score generation using electronic health records.

objectiveThis study aims to propose AutoScore, a machine learning-based automatic clinical score generator consisting of 6 modules for developing interpretable point-based scores. Future users can employ the AutoScore framework to create clinical scores effortlessly in various clinical applications.

methodsWe proposed the AutoScore framework comprising 6 modules that included variable ranking, variable transformation, score derivation, model selection, score fine-tuning, and model evaluation. To demonstrate the performance of AutoScore, we used data from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center to build a scoring model for mortality prediction and then compared the data with other baseline models using the receiver operating characteristic analysis. A software package in R 3.5.3 (R Foundation) was also developed to demonstrate the implementation of AutoScore.

resultsImplemented on the data set with 44,918 individual admission episodes of intensive care, the AutoScore-created scoring models performed comparably well as other standard methods (ie, logistic regression, stepwise regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, and random forest) in terms of predictive accuracy and model calibration but required fewer predictors and presented high interpretability and accessibility. The nine-variable, AutoScore-created, point-based scoring model achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.780 (95% CI 0.764-0.798), whereas the model of logistic regression with 24 variables had an AUC of 0.778 (95% CI 0.760-0.795). Moreover, the AutoScore framework also drives the clinical research continuum and automation with its integration of all necessary modules.

conclusionsWe developed an easy-to-use, machine learning-based automatic clinical score generator, AutoScore; systematically presented its structure; and demonstrated its superiority (predictive performance and interpretability) over other conventional methods using a benchmark database. AutoScore will emerge as a potential scoring tool in various medical applications.

Indexed as

clinical decision makingclinical prediction ruleelectronic health recordsmachine learningprognosis

Identifiers

PMID33084589
PMCPMC7641783

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.