Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34927670›Full record

ArticleEmerging topics in life sciences2021

Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning for clinical outcome prediction.

Rowland W Pettit, Robert Fullem, Chao Cheng, Christopher I Amos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emerging topics in life sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Current understanding and future directions in severe asthma through artificial intelligence-integrated multi-omic approaches.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Rowland W PettitInstitute for Clinical and Translational Research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0003-0011-8714
Robert FullemDepartment of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, U.S.A.
Chao ChengInstitute for Clinical and Translational Research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, U.S.A.
Christopher I AmosInstitute for Clinical and Translational Research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, U.S.A.

Funding

Training in Precision Environmental Health SciencesT32ES027801 · NIEHS · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI Cheryl L. Walker · 2018 to 2026
$2.8M
NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES027801
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AI is a broad concept, grouping initiatives that use a computer to perform tasks that would usually require a human to complete. AI methods are well suited to predict clinical outcomes. In practice, AI methods can be thought of as functions that learn the outcomes accompanying standardized input data to produce accurate outcome predictions when trialed with new data. Current methods for cleaning, creating, accessing, extracting, augmenting, and representing data for training AI clinical prediction models are well defined. The use of AI to predict clinical outcomes is a dynamic and rapidly evolving arena, with new methods and applications emerging. Extraction or accession of electronic health care records and combining these with patient genetic data is an area of present attention, with tremendous potential for future growth. Machine learning approaches, including decision tree methods of Random Forest and XGBoost, and deep learning techniques including deep multi-layer and recurrent neural networks, afford unique capabilities to accurately create predictions from high dimensional, multimodal data. Furthermore, AI methods are increasing our ability to accurately predict clinical outcomes that previously were difficult to model, including time-dependent and multi-class outcomes. Barriers to robust AI-based clinical outcome model deployment include changing AI product development interfaces, the specificity of regulation requirements, and limitations in ensuring model interpretability, generalizability, and adaptability over time.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedeep learningmachine learningreview

Identifiers

PMID34927670
PMCPMC8786279

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.