Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36050726›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2022

Exploratory application of machine learning methods on patient reported data in the development of supervised models for predicting outcomes.

Deepika Verma, Duncan Jansen, Kerstin Bach, Mannes Poel, Paul Jarle Mork, Wendy Oude Nijeweme d'Hollosy

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Moving towards the use of artificial intelligence in pain management.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Pain Medicine.Current pain and headache reports · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Deepika VermaDepartment of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. deepika.verma@ntnu.no.
Duncan JansenFaculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands.
Kerstin BachDepartment of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Mannes PoelFaculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands.
Paul Jarle MorkDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Wendy Oude Nijeweme d'HollosyFaculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are commonly used in clinical practice to support clinical decision making. However, few studies have investigated machine learning methods for predicting PROMs outcomes and thereby support clinical decision making.

objectiveThis study investigates to what extent different machine learning methods, applied to two different PROMs datasets, can predict outcomes among patients with non-specific neck and/or low back pain.

methodsUsing two datasets consisting of PROMs from (1) care-seeking low back pain patients in primary care who participated in a randomized controlled trial, and (2) patients with neck and/or low back pain referred to multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation, we present data science methods for data prepossessing and evaluate selected regression and classification methods for predicting patient outcomes.

resultsThe results show that there is a potential for machine learning to predict and classify PROMs. The prediction models based on baseline measurements perform well, and the number of predictors can be reduced, which is an advantage for implementation in decision support scenarios. The classification task shows that the dataset does not contain all necessary predictors for the care type classification. Overall, the work presents generalizable machine learning pipelines that can be adapted to other PROMs datasets.

conclusionThis study demonstrates the potential of PROMs in predicting short-term patient outcomes. Our results indicate that machine learning methods can be used to exploit the predictive value of PROMs and thereby support clinical decision making, given that the PROMs hold enough predictive power.

Indexed as

Low Back PainClinical Decision-MakingHumansMachine LearningPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresReferral and ConsultationLow-back painMachine learningNeck painOutcome PredictionPatient-reported outcomesSelf-reported measures

Identifiers

PMID36050726
PMCPMC9434943

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.