ArticleJAMIA open2020
Modeling physician variability to prioritize relevant medical record information.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maternal Preconception Body Mass Index Overtakes Age as a Risk Factor for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- Application of Machine Learning to Improve Appropriateness of Treatment in an Orthopaedic Setting of Personalized Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of eye tracking for a decision support application.JAMIA open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.