Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40627631›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Edges are all you need: Potential of medical time series analysis on complete blood count data with graph neural networks.

Daniel Walke, Daniel Steinbach, Sebastian Gibb, Thorsten Kaiser, Gunter Saake, Paul C Ahrens, David Broneske, Robert Heyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Daniel WalkeBioprocess Engineering, Otto von Guericke University, Universitätsplatz 2, Magdeburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5094-3566
Daniel SteinbachInstitute of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics, Leipzig University Hospital, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2364-598X
Sebastian GibbInstitute of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics, Leipzig University Hospital, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7406-4443
Thorsten KaiserUniversity Institute for Laboratory Medicine, Microbiology and Clinical Pathobiochemistry, OWL University Hospital of Bielefeld University, Detmold, Germany.
Gunter SaakeDatabase and Software Engineering Group, Otto von Guericke University, Universitätsplatz 2, Magdeburg, Germany.
Paul C AhrensInstitute of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics, Leipzig University Hospital, Leipzig, Germany.
David BroneskeGerman Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Lange Laube 12, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9580-740X
Robert HeyerMultidimensional Omics Analyses group, Leibniz-Institut für Analytische Wissenschaften - ISAS - e.V., Bunsen-Kirchhoff-Straße 11, Dortmund, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Neural Networks, ComputerSepsisAlgorithmsBlood Cell CountGraph Neural NetworksHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID40627631
PMCPMC12237013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.