ArticleJAMIA open2025
A phenotyping algorithm for classification of single ventricle physiology using electronic health records.
Article in JAMIA open, 2025. 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.
- A Knowledge Graph Framework for Longitudinal Congenital Heart Disease Modeling: Methodology Corner.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Objectives: Congenital heart disease (CHD) patients with single ventricle physiology (SVP) have heterogeneous characteristics that challenge cohort classification. We aim to develop a phenotyping algorithm that accurately identifies SVP patients using electronic health record (EHR) data. Materials and Methods: We used ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes for initial classification, then enhanced the algorithm with domain expertise, imaging reports, and progress notes. The algorithm was developed using a cohort of 1020 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging scans and tested in a separate cohort of 2500 CHD patients with adjudication. Validation was performed in a holdout group of 22 500 CHD patients. We evaluated performance using accuracy, sensitivity, precision, and F1 score, and compared it to a published algorithm for SVP using the same dataset. Results: In the 2500-testing cohort, our algorithm based on specialty-defined features and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes achieved 99.24% accuracy, 94.12% precision, 85.11% sensitivity, and 89.39% F1 score. In contrast, the published method achieved 95.20% accuracy, 43.23% precision, 88.30% sensitivity, and 58.04% F1 score. In the 22 500-validation cohort, our algorithm achieved 93.82% precision, while the published method achieved 43.00%. Discussion and Conclusions: Our automated phenotype algorithm, combined with physician adjudication, outperforms a published method for SVP classification. It effectively identifies false positives by cross-referencing clinical notes and detects missed SVP cases that were due to absent or erroneous ICD codes. Our integrated phenotyping algorithm showed excellent performance and has the potential to improve research and clinical care of SVP patients through the automated development of an electronic cohort for prognostication, monitoring, and management.
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.