Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37452338›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023

Using artificial intelligence to identify patients with migraine and associated symptoms and conditions within electronic health records.

Daniel Riskin, Roger Cady, Anand Shroff, Nada A Hindiyeh, Timothy Smith, Steven Kymes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Headache Field.Current pain and headache reports · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel RiskinVerantos Inc, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Roger CadyRK Consults, Ozark, MO, USA.
Anand ShroffVerantos Inc, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Nada A HindiyehStanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Timothy SmithStudyMetrix Research LLC, St. Peters, MO, USA.
Steven KymesLundbeck LLC, Deerfield, IL, USA. SKYM@lundbeck.com.
Menlo School · USLundbeck (United States) · USMissouri State University · USNeuroMetrix (United States) · USPalo Alto University · US

Funding

Leveraging advanced clinical phenotyping to enhance problem lists and support value-based healthcareR44TR002437 · NCATS · VMT, INC. · PI RISKIN, DANIEL JAY · 2018 to 2019
$1.5M
NCATS NIH HHS R44 TR002437
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReal-world evidence (RWE)-based on information obtained from sources such as electronic health records (EHRs), claims and billing databases, product and disease registries, and personal devices and health applications-is increasingly used to support healthcare decision making. There is variability in the collection of EHR data, which includes "structured data" in predefined fields (e.g., problem list, open claims, medication list, etc.) and "unstructured data" as free text or narrative. Healthcare providers are likely to provide more complete information as free text, but extracting meaning from these fields requires newer technologies and a rigorous methodology to generate higher-quality evidence. Herein, an approach to identify concepts associated with the presence and progression of migraine was developed and validated using the complete patient record in EHR data, including both the structured and unstructured portions.

methods"Traditional RWE" approaches (i.e., capture from structured EHR fields and extraction using structured queries) and "Advanced RWE" approaches (i.e., capture from unstructured EHR data and processing by artificial intelligence [AI] technology, including natural language processing and AI-based inference) were evaluated against a manual chart abstraction reference standard for data collected from a tertiary care setting. The primary endpoint was recall; differences were compared using chi square.

resultsCompared with manual chart abstraction, recall for migraine and headache were 66.6% and 29.6%, respectively, for Traditional RWE, and 96.8% and 92.9% for Advanced RWE; differences were statistically significant (absolute differences, 30.2% and 63.3%; P < 0.001). Recall of 6 migraine-associated symptoms favored Advanced RWE over Traditional RWE to a greater extent (absolute differences, 71.5-88.8%; P < 0.001). The difference between traditional and advanced techniques for recall of migraine medications was less pronounced, approximately 80% for Traditional RWE and ≥ 98% for Advanced RWE (P < 0.001).

conclusionUnstructured EHR data, processed using AI technologies, provides a more credible approach to enable RWE in migraine than using structured EHR and claims data alone. An algorithm was developed that could be used to further study and validate the use of RWE to support diagnosis and management of patients with migraine.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsMigraine DisordersAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceHumansNatural Language ProcessingElectronic health recordsMigraineObservational studyReal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID37452338
PMCPMC10349448
OpenAlexW4384298032

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.