ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Development and application of survey-based artificial intelligence for clinical decision support in managing infectious diseases: A pilot study on a hospital in central Vietnam.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prediction of miRNA-disease associations based on PCA and cascade forest.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In this study, we developed a simplified artificial intelligence to support the clinical decision-making of medical personnel in a resource-limited setting. Methods: We selected seven infectious disease categories that impose a heavy disease burden in the central Vietnam region: mosquito-borne disease, acute gastroenteritis, respiratory tract infection, pulmonary tuberculosis, sepsis, primary nervous system infection, and viral hepatitis. We developed a set of questionnaires to collect information on the current symptoms and history of patients suspected to have infectious diseases. We used data collected from 1,129 patients to develop and test a diagnostic model. We used XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost algorithms to create artificial intelligence for clinical decision support. We used a 4-fold cross-validation method to validate the artificial intelligence model. After 4-fold cross-validation, we tested artificial intelligence models on a separate test dataset and estimated diagnostic accuracy for each model. Results: We recruited 1,129 patients for final analyses. Artificial intelligence developed by the CatBoost algorithm showed the best performance, with 87.61% accuracy and an F1-score of 87.71. The F1-score of the CatBoost model by disease entity ranged from 0.80 to 0.97. Diagnostic accuracy was the lowest for sepsis and the highest for central nervous system infection. Conclusion: Simplified artificial intelligence could be helpful in clinical decision support in settings with limited resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.