ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2023
Postprediction Inference for Clinical Characteristics Extracted With Machine Learning on Electronic Health Records.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2023. 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.
- Scaling medical device regulatory science using large language models.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeReal-world data (RWD) derived from electronic health records (EHRs) are often used to understand population-level relationships between patient characteristics and cancer outcomes. Machine learning (ML) methods enable researchers to extract characteristics from unstructured clinical notes, and represent a more cost-effective and scalable approach than manual expert abstraction. These extracted data are then used in epidemiologic or statistical models as if they were abstracted observations. Analytical results derived from extracted data in this way may differ from those given by abstracted data, and the magnitude of this difference is not directly informed by standard ML performance metrics.
methodsIn this paper, we define the task of postprediction inference, which is to recover similar estimation and inference from an ML-extracted variable that would be obtained from abstracting the variable. We consider fitting a Cox proportional hazards model that uses a binary ML-extracted variable as a covariate and evaluate four approaches for postprediction inference in this setting. The first two approaches only require the ML-predicted probability, while the latter two additionally require a labeled (human abstracted) validation data set.
resultsOur results for both simulated data and EHR-derived RWD from a national cohort demonstrate that we can improve inference from ML-extracted variables by leveraging a limited amount of labeled data.
conclusionWe describe and evaluate methods for fitting statistical models using ML-extracted variables subject to model error. We show that estimation and inference is generally valid when using extracted data from high-performing ML models. More complex methods that incorporate auxiliary labeled data provide further improvements.
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.