Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33180897›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Precision population analytics: population management at the point-of-care.

Paul C Tang, Sarah Miller, Harry Stavropoulos, Uri Kartoun, John Zambrano, Kenney Ng

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Primary Care Informatics: Vitalizing the Bedrock of Health Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Paul C TangStanford Clinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Sarah MillerIBM Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Harry StavropoulosCenter for Computational Health, IBM Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Uri KartounCenter for Computational Health, IBM Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
John ZambranoAtrius Health Academic Institute, Atrius Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Kenney NgCenter for Computational Health, IBM Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Computational Physics (United States) · USCambridge Scientific (United States) · USStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo present clinicians at the point-of-care with real-world data on the effectiveness of various treatment options in a precision cohort of patients closely matched to the index patient. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe developed disease-specific, machine-learning, patient-similarity models for hypertension (HTN), type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and hyperlipidemia (HL) using data on approximately 2.5 million patients in a large medical group practice. For each identified decision point, an encounter during which the patient's condition was not controlled, we compared the actual outcome of the treatment decision administered to that of the best-achieved outcome for similar patients in similar clinical situations.

resultsFor the majority of decision points (66.8%, 59.0%, and 83.5% for HTN, T2DM, and HL, respectively), there were alternative treatment options administered to patients in the precision cohort that resulted in a significantly increased proportion of patients under control than the treatment option chosen for the index patient. The expected percentage of patients whose condition would have been controlled if the best-practice treatment option had been chosen would have been better than the actual percentage by: 36% (65.1% vs 48.0%, HTN), 68% (37.7% vs 22.5%, T2DM), and 138% (75.3% vs 31.7%, HL).

conclusionClinical guidelines are primarily based on the results of randomized controlled trials, which apply to a homogeneous subject population. Providing the effectiveness of various treatment options used in a precision cohort of patients similar to the index patient can provide complementary information to tailor guideline recommendations for individual patients and potentially improve outcomes.

Indexed as

Decision Making, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningPractice Guidelines as TopicDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Electronic Health RecordsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansHyperlipidemiasHypertensionPatient Care ManagementTreatment Outcomeclinical decision supportelectronic health recordsmachine learningpopulation health managementtreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID33180897
PMCPMC7936526
OpenAlexW3104823300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.