ArticleGigaScience2022
Health record hiccups-5,526 real-world time series with change points labelled by crowdsourced visual inspection.
Article in GigaScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leak Event Diagnosis for Power Plants: Generative Anomaly Detection Using Prototypical Networks.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Health record hiccups-5,526 real-world time series with change points labelled by crowdsourced visual inspection.GigaScience · 2022Article
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
backgroundLarge routinely collected data such as electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly used in research, but the statistical methods and processes used to check such data for temporal data quality issues have not moved beyond manual, ad hoc production and visual inspection of graphs. With the prospect of EHR data being used for disease surveillance via automated pipelines and public-facing dashboards, automation of data quality checks will become increasingly valuable.
findingsWe generated 5,526 time series from 8 different EHR datasets and engaged >2,000 citizen-science volunteers to label the locations of all suspicious-looking change points in the resulting graphs. Consensus labels were produced using density-based clustering with noise, with validation conducted using 956 images containing labels produced by an experienced data scientist. Parameter tuning was done against 670 images and performance calculated against 286 images, resulting in a final sensitivity of 80.4% (95% CI, 77.1%-83.3%), specificity of 99.8% (99.7%-99.8%), positive predictive value of 84.5% (81.4%-87.2%), and negative predictive value of 99.7% (99.6%-99.7%). In total, 12,745 change points were found within 3,687 of the time series.
conclusionsThis large collection of labelled EHR time series can be used to validate automated methods for change point detection in real-world settings, encouraging the development of methods that can successfully be applied in practice. It is particularly valuable since change point detection methods are typically validated using synthetic data, so their performance in real-world settings cannot be assumed to be comparable. While the dataset focusses on EHRs and data quality, it should also be applicable in other fields.
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.