Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36289266›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Artificial intelligence-based methods for fusion of electronic health records and imaging data.

Farida Mohsen, Hazrat Ali, Nady El Hajj, Zubair Shah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

92 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Multimodal Wearable Biosensing Meets Multidomain AI: A Pathway to Decentralized Healthcare.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  14. Digital Twin Technology In Radiology.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Farida MohsenCollege of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, 34110, Doha, Qatar.
Hazrat AliCollege of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, 34110, Doha, Qatar.
Nady El HajjCollege of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, 34110, Doha, Qatar.
Zubair ShahCollege of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, 34110, Doha, Qatar. zshah@hbku.edu.qa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare data are inherently multimodal, including electronic health records (EHR), medical images, and multi-omics data. Combining these multimodal data sources contributes to a better understanding of human health and provides optimal personalized healthcare. The most important question when using multimodal data is how to fuse them-a field of growing interest among researchers. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, particularly machine learning (ML), enable the fusion of these different data modalities to provide multimodal insights. To this end, in this scoping review, we focus on synthesizing and analyzing the literature that uses AI techniques to fuse multimodal medical data for different clinical applications. More specifically, we focus on studies that only fused EHR with medical imaging data to develop various AI methods for clinical applications. We present a comprehensive analysis of the various fusion strategies, the diseases and clinical outcomes for which multimodal fusion was used, the ML algorithms used to perform multimodal fusion for each clinical application, and the available multimodal medical datasets. We followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We searched Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar to retrieve relevant studies. After pre-processing and screening, we extracted data from 34 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We found that studies fusing imaging data with EHR are increasing and doubling from 2020 to 2021. In our analysis, a typical workflow was observed: feeding raw data, fusing different data modalities by applying conventional machine learning (ML) or deep learning (DL) algorithms, and finally, evaluating the multimodal fusion through clinical outcome predictions. Specifically, early fusion was the most used technique in most applications for multimodal learning (22 out of 34 studies). We found that multimodality fusion models outperformed traditional single-modality models for the same task. Disease diagnosis and prediction were the most common clinical outcomes (reported in 20 and 10 studies, respectively) from a clinical outcome perspective. Neurological disorders were the dominant category (16 studies). From an AI perspective, conventional ML models were the most used (19 studies), followed by DL models (16 studies). Multimodal data used in the included studies were mostly from private repositories (21 studies). Through this scoping review, we offer new insights for researchers interested in knowing the current state of knowledge within this research field.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceElectronic Health RecordsAlgorithmsDiagnostic ImagingHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID36289266
PMCPMC9605975

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.