ArticlePloS one2025
Edges are all you need: Potential of medical time series analysis on complete blood count data with graph neural networks.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMachine learning is a powerful tool to develop algorithms for clinical diagnosis. However, standard machine learning algorithms are not perfectly suited for clinical data since the data are interconnected and may contain time series. As shown for recommender systems and molecular property predictions, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) may represent a powerful alternative to exploit the inherently graph-based properties of clinical data. The main goal of this study is to evaluate when GNNs represent a valuable alternative for analyzing large clinical data from the clinical routine on the example of Complete Blood Count Data.
methodsIn this study, we evaluated the performance and time consumption of several GNNs (e.g., Graph Attention Networks) on similarity graphs compared to simpler, state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms (e.g., XGBoost) on the classification of sepsis from blood count data as well as the importance and slope of each feature for the final classification. Additionally, we connected complete blood count samples of the same patient based on their measured time (patient-centric graphs) to incorporate time series information in the GNNs. As our main evaluation metric, we used the Area Under Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC) to have a threshold independent metric that can handle class imbalance. RESULTS AND
conclusionStandard GNNs on evaluated similarity-graphs achieved an Area Under Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC) of up to 0.8747 comparable to the performance of ensemble-based machine learning algorithms and a neural network. However, our integration of time series information using patient-centric graphs with GNNs achieved a superior AUROC of up to 0.9565. Finally, we discovered that feature slope and importance highly differ between trained algorithms (e.g., XGBoost and GNN) on the same data basis.
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.