Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33623894›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2020

Modeling physician variability to prioritize relevant medical record information.

Mohammadamin Tajgardoon, Gregory F Cooper, Andrew J King, Gilles Clermont, Harry Hochheiser, Milos Hauskrecht, Dean F Sittig, Shyam Visweswaran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A highly predictive cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) risk score for 90-day and one-year major adverse cardiac events and revascularization.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Mohammadamin TajgardoonIntelligent Systems Program, School of Computing and Information, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2736-0199
Gregory F CooperIntelligent Systems Program, School of Computing and Information, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Andrew J KingDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Gilles ClermontDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Harry HochheiserIntelligent Systems Program, School of Computing and Information, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8793-9982
Milos HauskrechtIntelligent Systems Program, School of Computing and Information, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Dean F SittigDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5811-8915
Shyam VisweswaranIntelligent Systems Program, School of Computing and Information, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

Development and Evaluation of a Learning Electronic Medical Record SystemR01LM012095 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI VISWESWARAN, SHYAM · 2015 to 2018
$1.8M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012095
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatient information can be retrieved more efficiently in electronic medical record (EMR) systems by using machine learning models that predict which information a physician will seek in a clinical context. However, information-seeking behavior varies across EMR users. To explicitly account for this variability, we derived hierarchical models and compared their performance to nonhierarchical models in identifying relevant patient information in intensive care unit (ICU) cases. MATERIALS AND

methodsCritical care physicians reviewed ICU patient cases and selected data items relevant for presenting at morning rounds. Using patient EMR data as predictors, we derived hierarchical logistic regression (HLR) and standard logistic regression (LR) models to predict their relevance.

resultsIn 73 pairs of HLR and LR models, the HLR models achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.80-0.82], which was statistically significantly higher than that of LR models (0.75, 95% CI [0.74-0.76]). Further, the HLR models achieved statistically significantly lower expected calibration error (0.07, 95% CI [0.06-0.08]) than LR models (0.16, 95% CI [0.14-0.17]). DISCUSSION: The physician reviewers demonstrated variability in selecting relevant data. Our results show that HLR models perform significantly better than LR models with respect to both discrimination and calibration. This is likely due to explicitly modeling physician-related variability.

conclusionHierarchical models can yield better performance when there is physician-related variability as in the case of identifying relevant information in the EMR.

Indexed as

electronic medical recordshierarchical modelinginformation-seeking behaviormachine learningphysician variability

Identifiers

PMID33623894
PMCPMC7886572

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.