A systematic review of networks for prognostic prediction of health outcomes and diagnostic prediction of health conditions within Electronic Health Records

被引:1
作者
Hancox, Zoe [1 ]
Pang, Allan [1 ,2 ]
Conaghan, Philip G. [3 ,4 ]
Kingsbury, Sarah R. [3 ,4 ]
Clegg, Andrew [1 ]
Relton, Samuel D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Leeds, Leeds, England
[2] Royal Ctr Def Med Res & Clin Innovat RCI ICT Ctr, Vincent Dr, Birmingham, England
[3] Univ Leeds, Leeds Inst Rheumat & Musculoskeletal Med, Leeds, England
[4] NIHR Leeds Biomed Res Ctr, Leeds, England
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
Graphs; Networks; Electronic health records; Prediction; Machine learning; MODEL; RISK;
D O I
10.1016/j.artmed.2024.102999
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Background and objective Using graph theory, Electronic Health Records (EHRs) can be represented graphically to exploit the relational dependencies of the multiple information formats to improve Machine Learning (ML) prediction models. In this systematic qualitative review, we explore the question: How are graphs used on EHRs, to predict diagnosis and health outcomes? Methodology The search strategy identified studies that used patient-level graph representations of EHRs to utilise ML to predict health outcomes and diagnoses. We conducted our search on MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus. Results 832 studies were identified by the search strategy, of which 27 studies were selected for data extraction. Following data extraction, 18 studies used ML with patient-level graph-based representations of EHRs to predict health outcomes and diagnoses. Models ranged from traditional ML to neural network-based models. MIMIC-III was the most used dataset (n = 6, where n is the number of occurrences), followed by National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) (n = 4) and eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU) (n = 4). The most predicted health outcomes were mortality (n = 9; 21%), hospital readmission (n = 9; 21%), and treatment success (n = 4; 9%). Model performances ranged across outcomes, mortality prediction (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC): 72.1 - 91.6; Area Under Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC): 34.8 - 81.3) and readmission prediction (AUROC: 63.7 - 85.8; AUPRC 39.86 - 84.7). Only one paper had a low Risk of Bias (RoB) that applied to our research question (4%). Conclusion Graph-based representations using EHRs, for individual health outcomes and diagnoses requires further research before we can see the results applied clinically. The use of graph representations appears to improve EHR representation and predictive performance compared to baseline ML methods in multiple fields of medicine.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 60 条
[1]   A New Framework for Distilling Higher Quality information from Health Data via Social Network Analysis [J].
Baglioni, M. ;
Pieroni, S. ;
Geraci, F. ;
Mariani, F. ;
Molinaro, S. ;
Pellegrini, M. ;
Lastres, E. .
2013 IEEE 13TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DATA MINING WORKSHOPS (ICDMW), 2013, :48-55
[2]   Using data mining techniques for multi-diseases prediction modeling of hypertension and hyperlipidemia by common risk factors [J].
Chang, Cheng-Ding ;
Wang, Chien-Chih ;
Jiang, Bernard C. .
EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2011, 38 (05) :5507-5513
[3]   THE ANALYSIS FROM NONLINEAR DISTANCE METRIC TO KERNEL-BASED PRESCRIPTION PREDICTION SYSTEM [J].
Chang, Der-Chen ;
Frieder, Ophir ;
Hung, Chi-Feng ;
Yao, Hao-Ren .
JOURNAL OF NONLINEAR AND VARIATIONAL ANALYSIS, 2021, 5 (02) :179-199
[4]   Mining Health Examination Records-A Graph-Based Approach [J].
Chen, Ling ;
Li, Xue ;
Sheng, Quan Z. ;
Peng, Wen-Chih ;
Bennett, John ;
Hu, Hsiao-Yun ;
Huang, Nicole .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON KNOWLEDGE AND DATA ENGINEERING, 2016, 28 (09) :2423-2437
[5]   Heterogeneous graph construction and HinSAGE learning from electronic medical records [J].
Cho, Ha Na ;
Ahn, Imjin ;
Gwon, Hansle ;
Kang, Hee Jun ;
Kim, Yunha ;
Seo, Hyeram ;
Choi, Heejung ;
Kim, Minkyoung ;
Han, Jiye ;
Kee, Gaeun ;
Jun, Tae Joon ;
Kim, Young-Hak .
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2022, 12 (01)
[6]  
Choi E, 2020, AAAI CONF ARTIF INTE, V34, P606
[7]   Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 1): from development to external validation [J].
Collins, Gary S. ;
Dhiman, Paula ;
Ma, Jie ;
Schlussel, Michael M. ;
Archer, Lucinda ;
Van Calster, Ben ;
Harrell Jr, Frank E. ;
Martin, Glen P. ;
Moons, Karel G. M. ;
van Smeden, Maarten ;
Sperrin, Matthew ;
Bullock, Garrett S. ;
Riley, Richard .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 384
[8]   Protocol for development of a reporting guideline (TRIPOD-AI) and risk of bias tool (PROBAST-AI) for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies based on artificial intelligence [J].
Collins, Gary S. ;
Dhiman, Paula ;
Andaur Navarro, Constanza L. ;
Ma, Ji ;
Hooft, Lotty ;
Reitsma, Johannes B. ;
Logullo, Patricia ;
Beam, Andrew L. ;
Peng, Lily ;
Van Calster, Ben ;
van Smeden, Maarten ;
Riley, Richard D. ;
Moons, Karel G. M. .
BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (07)
[9]  
Collins GS, 2015, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V68, P112, DOI [10.7326/M14-0697, 10.1038/bjc.2014.639, 10.1111/eci.12376, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.010, 10.7326/M14-0698, 10.1136/bmj.g7594, 10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z, 10.1002/bjs.9736, 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.025]
[10]  
Davenport Thomas, 2019, Future Healthc J, V6, P94, DOI 10.7861/futurehosp.6-2-94