ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2024
Automated sample annotation for diabetes mellitus in healthcare integrated biobanking.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2024. 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.
- Design and validation of an automated healthcare-integrated biobanking algorithm for identification of advanced chronic kidney disease.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare integrated biobanking describes the annotation and collection of residual samples from hospitalized patients for research purposes. The central idea of the current work is to establish an automated workflow for sample annotation, selection and storage for diabetes mellitus. This is challenging due to incomplete data at the time of sample selection. The study evaluates a machine learning (ML) and natural language processing (NLP) based two-step procedure for timely and precise sample annotation for diabetes mellitus. Electronic health record data of 785 persons were extracted from the hospital information system. In the first step, a conditional inference forest (CIF) model was trained and tested based on laboratory values from the first 72 h of the hospital stay using test- (n = 550) and training data sets (n = 235). Performance was compared with a simple laboratory cut-off classifier (LCC) and a logistic regression (LR) model. Algorithms based on laboratory values, ICD-10 codes or information from discharge summaries extracted by a natural language processing software (NLP-DS) were evaluated as a second (review) step designed to increase the precision of annotations. For the first step, recall/precision/F1-score/accuracy were 71 %/86 %/0.78/0.82 for CIF and 77 %/70 %/0.74/0.75 for LR compared to 73 %/68 %/0.70/0.72 for LCC. NLP-DS was the best-performing second (review) step (93 %/100 %/0.97/0.97). Combining first-step models with NLP-DS increased precision to 100 % for all procedures (66 %/100 %/0.80/0.85 for CIF&NLP-DS, 72 %/100 %/0.84/87.2 for LR&NLP-DS and 66 %/100 %/0.80/0.85 for LCC&NLP-DS). The number of samples removed by NLP-DS was higher for LR&NLP-DS and LCC&NLP-DS (removal rate 35 % and 38 % of initially selected samples) compared to CIF&NLP-DS (removal rate of 20 %). The developed two-step procedure is an efficient implementable method for timely and precise annotation of samples from diabetic hospitalized patients.
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.