Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37761781›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Artificial Intelligence Models in Health Information Exchange: A Systematic Review of Clinical Implications.

Sahar Borna, Michael J Maniaci, Clifton R Haider, Karla C Maita, Ricardo A Torres-Guzman, Francisco R Avila, Julianne J Lunde, Jordan D Coffey, Bart M Demaerschalk, Antonio J Forte

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sahar BornaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Michael J ManiaciDivision of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2731-1787
Clifton R HaiderDepartment of Physiology and Biomedical Engineering, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA.
Karla C MaitaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Ricardo A Torres-GuzmanDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Francisco R AvilaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Julianne J LundeCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA.
Jordan D CoffeyCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5256-0654
Bart M DemaerschalkCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA.
Antonio J ForteDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2004-7538
Mayo Clinic in Florida · USMayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic health record (EHR) systems collate patient data, and the integration and standardization of documents through Health Information Exchange (HIE) play a pivotal role in refining patient management. Although the clinical implications of AI in EHR systems have been extensively analyzed, its application in HIE as a crucial source of patient data is less explored. Addressing this gap, our systematic review delves into utilizing AI models in HIE, gauging their predictive prowess and potential limitations. Employing databases such as Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed/Medline, and Web of Science and adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, we unearthed 1021 publications. Of these, 11 were shortlisted for the final analysis. A noticeable preference for machine learning models in prognosticating clinical results, notably in oncology and cardiac failures, was evident. The metrics displayed AUC values ranging between 61% and 99.91%. Sensitivity metrics spanned from 12% to 96.50%, specificity from 76.30% to 98.80%, positive predictive values varied from 83.70% to 94.10%, and negative predictive values between 94.10% and 99.10%. Despite variations in specific metrics, AI models drawing on HIE data unfailingly showcased commendable predictive proficiency in clinical verdicts, emphasizing the transformative potential of melding AI with HIE. However, variations in sensitivity highlight underlying challenges. As healthcare's path becomes more enmeshed with AI, a well-rounded, enlightened approach is pivotal to guarantee the delivery of trustworthy and effective AI-augmented healthcare solutions.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceelectronic health recordhealth information exchangemachine learning

Identifiers

PMID37761781
PMCPMC10531020
OpenAlexW4386895317

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.