ArticleScientific reports2023
SCOPE: predicting future diagnoses in office visits using electronic health records.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating dimensionality reduction of comorbidities for predictive modeling in individuals with neurofibromatosis type 1.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Med-MGF: multi-level graph-based framework for handling medical data imbalance and representation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Advancing Clinical Information Systems: Harnessing Telemedicine, Data Science, and AI for Enhanced and More Precise Healthcare Delivery.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Incorporating Patient Similarity and Clinical Temporality in Disease Prognostic Modeling.IEEE transactions on computational biology and bioinformaticsArticle
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
We propose an interpretable and scalable model to predict likely diagnoses at an encounter based on past diagnoses and lab results. This model is intended to aid physicians in their interaction with the electronic health records (EHR). To accomplish this, we retrospectively collected and de-identified EHR data of 2,701,522 patients at Stanford Healthcare over a time period from January 2008 to December 2016. A population-based sample of patients comprising 524,198 individuals (44% M, 56% F) with multiple encounters with at least one frequently occurring diagnosis codes were chosen. A calibrated model was developed to predict ICD-10 diagnosis codes at an encounter based on the past diagnoses and lab results, using a binary relevance based multi-label modeling strategy. Logistic regression and random forests were tested as the base classifier, and several time windows were tested for aggregating the past diagnoses and labs. This modeling approach was compared to a recurrent neural network based deep learning method. The best model used random forest as the base classifier and integrated demographic features, diagnosis codes, and lab results. The best model was calibrated and its performance was comparable or better than existing methods in terms of various metrics, including a median AUROC of 0.904 (IQR [0.838, 0.954]) over 583 diseases. When predicting the first occurrence of a disease label for a patient, the median AUROC with the best model was 0.796 (IQR [0.737, 0.868]). Our modeling approach performed comparably as the tested deep learning method, outperforming it in terms of AUROC (p < 0.001) but underperforming in terms of AUPRC (p < 0.001). Interpreting the model showed that the model uses meaningful features and highlights many interesting associations among diagnoses and lab results. We conclude that the multi-label model performs comparably with RNN based deep learning model while offering simplicity and potentially superior interpretability. While the model was trained and validated on data obtained from a single institution, its simplicity, interpretability and performance makes it a promising candidate for deployment.
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.