ArticleDigital health
Enhance health evidence quality in classification tasks: A triangulation approach utilizing case-based reasoning and process features.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Machine learning (ML) has enabled healthcare discoveries by facilitating efficient modeling, such as for cancer screening. Unlike clinical trials, real-world data used in ML are often gathered for multiple purposes, leading to bias and missing information for a specific classification task. This challenge is especially pronounced in healthcare because of stringent ethical considerations and resource constraints.This study proposed an integrated approach to enhance the quality of health evidence from a classification task for predicting Medicare's Diagnosis-Related Groups of ischemic heart disease (IHD) patients. Methods: Eligible participants were identified from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC IV), a publicly available hospital database. Six ML models were selected for model triangulation. Sequential triangulation was employed via Local Process Mining (LPM) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Results: A total of 1545 IHD hospitalizations from 916 patients were identified from the MIMIC IV. Eight health process features were identified through LPM aligned with clinical knowledge. The correlation coefficients for process features, ranging from 0.24 to 0.42, are higher than those for non-process features ranged from 0.02 to 0.36. A total of 56 unique combinations were identified from the QCA, with 28 configurations having raw coverage lower than 1.0%. The overall model performance (i.e. weighted F1 and area under the curve scores) increased after adopting this integrated approach. The proportion of cases misclassified by any of the six models decreased by 47% after incorporating process features (from 5.29% to 2.91%) and further decreased to 0.0% after applying the QCA solutions. Conclusion: The integrated approach demonstrates its ability to enhance quality of a classification task through its clinical relevance, improved model performance, and reduced case-level error rates. However, more scalable QCA methods are needed for larger datasets. Developing health process feature engineering for broader applications can be a future direction.
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.