Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38776276›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2024

Outlier analysis for accelerating clinical discovery: An augmented intelligence framework and a systematic review.

Ghayath Janoudi, Mara Uzun Rada, Deshayne B Fell, Joel G Ray, Angel M Foster, Randy Giffen, Tammy Clifford, Mark C Walker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

8 authors.

Ghayath JanoudiClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0790-047X
Mara Uzun RadaIndependent Researcher, Ottawa, Canada.
Deshayne B FellSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Joel G RayDepartments of Medicine, Health Policy Management and Evaluation, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Angel M FosterFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Randy GiffenIBM Canada, IBM, Toronto, Canada.
Tammy CliffordSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Mark C WalkerClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8974-4548

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical discoveries largely depend on dedicated clinicians and scientists to identify and pursue unique and unusual clinical encounters with patients and communicate these through case reports and case series. This process has remained essentially unchanged throughout the history of modern medicine. However, these traditional methods are inefficient, especially considering the modern-day availability of health-related data and the sophistication of computer processing. Outlier analysis has been used in various fields to uncover unique observations, including fraud detection in finance and quality control in manufacturing. We propose that clinical discovery can be formulated as an outlier problem within an augmented intelligence framework to be implemented on any health-related data. Such an augmented intelligence approach would accelerate the identification and pursuit of clinical discoveries, advancing our medical knowledge and uncovering new therapies and management approaches. We define clinical discoveries as contextual outliers measured through an information-based approach and with a novelty-based root cause. Our augmented intelligence framework has five steps: define a patient population with a desired clinical outcome, build a predictive model, identify outliers through appropriate measures, investigate outliers through domain content experts, and generate scientific hypotheses. Recognizing that the field of obstetrics can particularly benefit from this approach, as it is traditionally neglected in commercial research, we conducted a systematic review to explore how outlier analysis is implemented in obstetric research. We identified two obstetrics-related studies that assessed outliers at an aggregate level for purposes outside of clinical discovery. Our findings indicate that using outlier analysis in clinical research in obstetrics and clinical research, in general, requires further development.

Identifiers

PMID38776276
PMCPMC11111092

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.