ArticleJACC. Advances2024
Machine Learning Informed Diagnosis for Congenital Heart Disease in Large Claims Data Source.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Congenital heart disease diagnosis using machine learning: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Enhancing multimodal inpatient fall prediction via nursing statement integration within the OMOP common data model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Tetralogy of Fallot: From Prenatal Diagnosis to Lifelong Management: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Personalized Diagnoses for Those Born with Congenitally Malformed Hearts.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- A Generalized Machine Learning Model for Identifying Congenital Heart Defects (CHDs) Using ICD Codes.Birth defects research · 2025Article
- Is Artificial Intelligence the Missing Link Between Administrative Data and Complete Patient-Level Health Records?JACC. Advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With an increasing interest in using large claims databases in medical practice and research, it is a meaningful and essential step to efficiently identify patients with the disease of interest. Objectives: This study aims to establish a machine learning (ML) approach to identify patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) in large claims databases. Methods: We harnessed data from the Quebec claims and hospitalization databases from 1983 to 2000. The study included 19,187 patients. Of them, 3,784 were labeled as true CHD patients using a clinician developed algorithm with manual audits considered as the gold standards. To establish an accurate ML-empowered automated CHD classification system, we evaluated ML methods including Gradient Boosting Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine, Decision tree, and compared them to regularized logistic regression. The Area Under the Precision Recall Curve was used as the evaluation metric. External validation was conducted with an updated data set to 2010 with different subjects. Results: Among the ML methods we evaluated, Gradient Boosting Decision Tree led the performance in identifying true CHD patients with 99.3% Area Under the Precision Recall Curve, 98.0% for sensitivity, and 99.7% for specificity. External validation returned similar statistics on model performance. Conclusions: This study shows that a tedious and time-consuming clinical inspection for CHD patient identification can be replaced by an extremely efficient ML algorithm in large claims database. Our findings demonstrate that ML methods can be used to automate complicated algorithms to identify patients with complex diseases.
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.