Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33591972›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

PI Prob: A risk prediction and clinical guidance system for evaluating patients with recurrent infections.

Nicholas L Rider, Gina Cahill, Tina Motazedi, Lei Wei, Ashok Kurian, Lenora M Noroski, Filiz O Seeborg, Ivan K Chinn, Kirk Roberts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

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

9 authors.

Nicholas L RiderDepartment of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2549-0678
Gina CahillDepartment of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Tina MotazediDivision of Allergy and Immunology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Lei WeiDepartment of Information Services, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Ashok KurianDepartment of Information Services, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Lenora M NoroskiDepartment of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Filiz O SeeborgDepartment of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5975-4550
Ivan K ChinnDepartment of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5684-5457
Kirk RobertsThe University of Texas School of Biomedical Informatics, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0716-3630

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary immunodeficiency diseases represent an expanding set of heterogeneous conditions which are difficult to recognize clinically. Diagnostic rates outside of the newborn period have not changed appreciably. This concern underscores a need for novel methods of disease detection.

objectiveWe built a Bayesian network to provide real-time risk assessment about primary immunodeficiency and to facilitate prescriptive analytics for initiating the most appropriate diagnostic work up. Our goal is to improve diagnostic rates for primary immunodeficiency and shorten time to diagnosis. We aimed to use readily available health record data and a small training dataset to prove utility in diagnosing patients with relatively rare features.

methodsWe extracted data from the Texas Children's Hospital electronic health record on a large population of primary immunodeficiency patients (n = 1762) and appropriately-matched set of controls (n = 1698). From the cohorts, clinically relevant prior probabilities were calculated enabling construction of a Bayesian network probabilistic model(PI Prob). Our model was constructed with clinical-immunology domain expertise, trained on a balanced cohort of 100 cases-controls and validated on an unseen balanced cohort of 150 cases-controls. Performance was measured by area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC). We also compared our network performance to classic machine learning model performance on the same dataset.

resultsPI Prob was accurate in classifying immunodeficiency patients from controls (AUROC = 0.945; p<0.0001) at a risk threshold of ≥6%. Additionally, the model was 89% accurate for categorizing validation cohort members into appropriate International Union of Immunological Societies diagnostic categories. Our network outperformed 3 other machine learning models and provides superior transparency with a prescriptive output element.

conclusionArtificial intelligence methods can classify risk for primary immunodeficiency and guide management. PI Prob enables accurate, objective decision making about risk and guides the user towards the appropriate diagnostic evaluation for patients with recurrent infections. Probabilistic models can be trained with small datasets underscoring their utility for rare disease detection given appropriate domain expertise for feature selection and network construction.

Indexed as

Area Under CurveArtificial IntelligenceBayes TheoremCase-Control StudiesChildChild, PreschoolClinical Decision RulesCohort StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleModels, StatisticalPrimary Immunodeficiency DiseasesReinfection

Identifiers

PMID33591972
PMCPMC7886140

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.