ArticleExperimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.)2023
Decision rules for personalized statin treatment prescriptions over multi-objectives.
Article in Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.), 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Creative and generative artificial intelligence for personalized medicine and healthcare: Hype, reality, or hyperreality?Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In our previous study, we demonstrated the feasibility of producing a proactive statin prescription strategy - a personalized statin treatment plan (PSTP) - using neural networks with big data. However, its non-transparency limited result interpretations and clinical usability. To improve the transparency of our previous approach with minimal compromise to the maximal statin treatment benefit-to-risk ratio, this study proposed a five-step pipeline approach called the decision rules for statin treatment (DRST). Steps 1-3 of our proposed pipeline improved our previous PSTP model in optimizing individual benefit-to-risk ratio; Step 4 used a decision tree model (DRST) to provide straightforward rules in the initial statin treatment plan; Step 5 aimed to evaluate the efficacy of these decision rules by conducting a clinical trial simulation. We included 107,739 de-identified patient data from Optum Labs Database Warehouse in this study. The final decision rules were compact and efficient, resulting from a decision tree with only a maximum depth of 3 and 11 nodes. The DRST identified three factors that are easily obtainable at the point of care: age, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, and age-adjusted Charlson score. Moreover, it also identified six subpopulations that can benefit most from these decision rules. In our clinical trial simulations, DRST was found to improve statin benefit in LDL-C reduction by 4.15 percentage points (pp) and reduce risks of statin-associated symptoms (SAS) and statin discontinuation by 11.71 and 3.96 pp, respectively, when compared to the standard of care. Moreover, these DRST results were only less than 0.6 pp suboptimal to PSTP, demonstrating that building DRST that provide transparency with minimal compromise to the maximal benefit-to-risk ratio of statin treatments is feasible.
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.