Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2021
Study on the semi-supervised learning-based patient similarity from heterogeneous electronic medical records.
Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncovering the Understanding of the Concept of Patient Similarity in Cancer Research and Treatment: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A Personalized Predictive Model That Jointly Optimizes Discrimination and Calibration.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Sequential Data-Based Patient Similarity Framework for Patient Outcome Prediction: Algorithm Development.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA new learning-based patient similarity measurement was proposed to measure patients' similarity for heterogeneous electronic medical records (EMRs) data.
methodsWe first calculated feature-level similarities according to the features' attributes. A domain expert provided patient similarity scores of 30 randomly selected patients. These similarity scores and feature-level similarities for 30 patients comprised the labeled sample set, which was used for the semi-supervised learning algorithm to learn the patient-level similarities for all patients. Then we used the k-nearest neighbor (kNN) classifier to predict four liver conditions. The predictive performances were compared in four different situations. We also compared the performances between personalized kNN models and other machine learning models. We assessed the predictive performances by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), F1-score, and cross-entropy (CE) loss.
resultsAs the size of the random training samples increased, the kNN models using the learned patient similarity to select near neighbors consistently outperformed those using the Euclidean distance to select near neighbors (all P values < 0.001). The kNN models using the learned patient similarity to identify the top k nearest neighbors from the random training samples also had a higher best-performance (AUC: 0.95 vs. 0.89, F1-score: 0.84 vs. 0.67, and CE loss: 1.22 vs. 1.82) than those using the Euclidean distance. As the size of the similar training samples increased, which composed the most similar samples determined by the learned patient similarity, the performance of kNN models using the simple Euclidean distance to select the near neighbors degraded gradually. When exchanging the role of the Euclidean distance, and the learned patient similarity in selecting the near neighbors and similar training samples, the performance of the kNN models gradually increased. These two kinds of kNN models had the same best-performance of AUC 0.95, F1-score 0.84, and CE loss 1.22. Among the four reference models, the highest AUC and F1-score were 0.94 and 0.80, separately, which were both lower than those for the simple and similarity-based kNN models.
conclusionsThis learning-based method opened an opportunity for similarity measurement based on heterogeneous EMR data and supported the secondary use of EMR data.
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.