Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36413056›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023

Machine learning approaches for electronic health records phenotyping: a methodical review.

Siyue Yang, Paul Varghese, Ellen Stephenson, Karen Tu, Jessica Gronsbell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed
–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

78 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

18 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

5 authors.

Siyue YangDepartment of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Paul VargheseVerily Life Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Ellen StephensonDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1869-0073
Karen TuDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jessica GronsbellDepartment of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAccurate and rapid phenotyping is a prerequisite to leveraging electronic health records for biomedical research. While early phenotyping relied on rule-based algorithms curated by experts, machine learning (ML) approaches have emerged as an alternative to improve scalability across phenotypes and healthcare settings. This study evaluates ML-based phenotyping with respect to (1) the data sources used, (2) the phenotypes considered, (3) the methods applied, and (4) the reporting and evaluation methods used. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched PubMed and Web of Science for articles published between 2018 and 2022. After screening 850 articles, we recorded 37 variables on 100 studies.

resultsMost studies utilized data from a single institution and included information in clinical notes. Although chronic conditions were most commonly considered, ML also enabled the characterization of nuanced phenotypes such as social determinants of health. Supervised deep learning was the most popular ML paradigm, while semi-supervised and weakly supervised learning were applied to expedite algorithm development and unsupervised learning to facilitate phenotype discovery. ML approaches did not uniformly outperform rule-based algorithms, but deep learning offered a marginal improvement over traditional ML for many conditions. DISCUSSION: Despite the progress in ML-based phenotyping, most articles focused on binary phenotypes and few articles evaluated external validity or used multi-institution data. Study settings were infrequently reported and analytic code was rarely released.

conclusionContinued research in ML-based phenotyping is warranted, with emphasis on characterizing nuanced phenotypes, establishing reporting and evaluation standards, and developing methods to accommodate misclassified phenotypes due to algorithm errors in downstream applications.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchElectronic Health RecordsAlgorithmsMachine LearningPhenotypecohort identificationelectronic health recordsmachine learningphenotyping

Identifiers

PMID36413056
PMCPMC9846699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.