Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36223208›Full record

ReviewArchives of pathology & laboratory medicine2023

Building the Model.

He S Yang, Daniel D Rhoads, Jorge Sepulveda, Chengxi Zang, Amy Chadburn, Fei Wang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Evaluating artificial intelligence-enabled medical tests in cardiology: Best practice.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. A Perspective on Artificial Intelligence for Molecular Pathologists.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

He S YangFrom the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (Yang, Chadburn), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Daniel D RhoadsThe Department of Laboratory Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (Rhoads).
Jorge SepulvedaThe Department of Pathology, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia (Sepulveda).
Chengxi ZangThe Department of Population Health Sciences (Zang, Wang), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Amy ChadburnFrom the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (Yang, Chadburn), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Fei WangThe Department of Population Health Sciences (Zang, Wang), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.

Funding

Developing Suicide Risk Algorithms for Diverse Clinical Settings using Data FusionR01MH124740 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCH OF MED/DNT · PI ASELTINE, ROBERT H, CHEN, KUN · 2020 to 2023
$3.2M
Identification of Mild Cognitive Impairment using Machine Learning from Language and Behavior MarkersRF1AG072449 · NIA · MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY · PI DODGE, HIROKO HAYAMA, WANG, FEI · 2021 to 2023
$2.6M
NIA NIH HHS RF1 AG072449NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH124740
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CONTEXT.—: Machine learning (ML) allows for the analysis of massive quantities of high-dimensional clinical laboratory data, thereby revealing complex patterns and trends. Thus, ML can potentially improve the efficiency of clinical data interpretation and the practice of laboratory medicine. However, the risks of generating biased or unrepresentative models, which can lead to misleading clinical conclusions or overestimation of the model performance, should be recognized. OBJECTIVES.—: To discuss the major components for creating ML models, including data collection, data preprocessing, model development, and model evaluation. We also highlight many of the challenges and pitfalls in developing ML models, which could result in misleading clinical impressions or inaccurate model performance, and provide suggestions and guidance on how to circumvent these challenges. DATA SOURCES.—: The references for this review were identified through searches of the PubMed database, US Food and Drug Administration white papers and guidelines, conference abstracts, and online preprints. CONCLUSIONS.—: With the growing interest in developing and implementing ML models in clinical practice, laboratorians and clinicians need to be educated in order to collect sufficiently large and high-quality data, properly report the data set characteristics, and combine data from multiple institutions with proper normalization. They will also need to assess the reasons for missing values, determine the inclusion or exclusion of outliers, and evaluate the completeness of a data set. In addition, they require the necessary knowledge to select a suitable ML model for a specific clinical question and accurately evaluate the performance of the ML model, based on objective criteria. Domain-specific knowledge is critical in the entire workflow of developing ML models.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationMachine LearningHumans

Identifiers

PMID36223208
PMCPMC10344421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.