Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33372632›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2020

Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods.

Phyllis M Thangaraj, Benjamin R Kummer, Tal Lorberbaum, Mitchell S V Elkind, Nicholas P Tatonetti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Phyllis M ThangarajDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, 622 W 168th St., PH-20, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Benjamin R KummerDepartment of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Tal LorberbaumDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, 622 W 168th St., PH-20, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Mitchell S V ElkindDepartment of Neurology, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Nicholas P TatonettiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, 622 W 168th St., PH-20, New York, NY, 10032, USA. nick.tatonetti@columbia.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2700-2597

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007367 · NIGMS · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI REINER, STEVEN L · 1985 to 2021
$25.1M
Precision Pharmacology and Pharmacovigilance: Leveraging AI to address drug safety knowledge gapsR35GM131905 · NIGMS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Nicholas P Tatonetti · 2019 to 2026
$3.3M
Biomedical Data Translator Technical Feasibility Assessment and Architecture DesignOT3TR002027 · NCATS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI DUMONTIER, MICHEL, TATONETTI, NICHOLAS P · 2016 to 2019
$2.7M
Drug Effect Discovery Through Data Mining and Integrative Chemical BiologyR01GM107145 · NIGMS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI TATONETTI, NICHOLAS P · 2014 to 2018
$2.5M
Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853NCATS NIH HHS 10T3TR002027NCATS NIH HHS OT3 TR002027NHLBI NIH HHS F30HL14094601NIGMS NIH HHS 5R01GM107145NIGMS NIH HHS 5T32GM007367NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM131905NIGMS NIH HHS R35GM131905NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007367
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate identification of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patient cohorts is essential for a wide range of clinical investigations. Automated phenotyping methods that leverage electronic health records (EHRs) represent a fundamentally new approach cohort identification without current laborious and ungeneralizable generation of phenotyping algorithms. We systematically compared and evaluated the ability of machine learning algorithms and case-control combinations to phenotype acute ischemic stroke patients using data from an EHR. MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing structured patient data from the EHR at a tertiary-care hospital system, we built and evaluated machine learning models to identify patients with AIS based on 75 different case-control and classifier combinations. We then estimated the prevalence of AIS patients across the EHR. Finally, we externally validated the ability of the models to detect AIS patients without AIS diagnosis codes using the UK Biobank.

resultsAcross all models, we found that the mean AUROC for detecting AIS was 0.963 ± 0.0520 and average precision score 0.790 ± 0.196 with minimal feature processing. Classifiers trained with cases with AIS diagnosis codes and controls with no cerebrovascular disease codes had the best average F1 score (0.832 ± 0.0383). In the external validation, we found that the top probabilities from a model-predicted AIS cohort were significantly enriched for AIS patients without AIS diagnosis codes (60-150 fold over expected).

conclusionsOur findings support machine learning algorithms as a generalizable way to accurately identify AIS patients without using process-intensive manual feature curation. When a set of AIS patients is unavailable, diagnosis codes may be used to train classifier models.

Indexed as

Acute ischemic strokeElectronic health record studiesMachine learningPhenotyping algorithms

Identifiers

PMID33372632
PMCPMC7720570

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.