Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33836447›Full record

ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2021

Towards similarity-based differential diagnostics for common diseases.

Karin Slater, Andreas Karwath, John A Williams, Sophie Russell, Silver Makepeace, Alexander Carberry, Robert Hoehndorf, Georgios V Gkoutos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Similarity matching of medical question based on Siamese network.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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.

Karin SlaterCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK; Institute of Translational Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham, NHS Foundation Trust, UK; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: l.slater.1@bham.ac.uk.
Andreas KarwathCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK; Institute of Translational Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham, NHS Foundation Trust, UK; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
John A WilliamsCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK; Institute of Translational Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham, NHS Foundation Trust, UK; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Sophie RussellCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK.
Silver MakepeaceCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK.
Alexander CarberryCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK.
Robert HoehndorfComputer, Electrical and Mathematical Sciences & Engineering Division, Computational Bioscience Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia.
Georgios V GkoutosCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK; Institute of Translational Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham, NHS Foundation Trust, UK; NIHR Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, UK; NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, UK; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, UK; MRC Health Data Research UK (HDR UK) Midlands, UK; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council HDRUK/CFC/01Medical Research Council MR/S003991/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ontology-based phenotype profiles have been utilised for the purpose of differential diagnosis of rare genetic diseases, and for decision support in specific disease domains. Particularly, semantic similarity facilitates diagnostic hypothesis generation through comparison with disease phenotype profiles. However, the approach has not been applied for differential diagnosis of common diseases, or generalised clinical diagnostics from uncurated text-derived phenotypes. In this work, we describe the development of an approach for deriving patient phenotype profiles from clinical narrative text, and apply this to text associated with MIMIC-III patient visits. We then explore the use of semantic similarity with those text-derived phenotypes to classify primary patient diagnosis, comparing the use of patient-patient similarity and patient-disease similarity using phenotype-disease profiles previously mined from literature. We also consider a combined approach, in which literature-derived phenotypes are extended with the content of text-derived phenotypes we mined from 500 patients. The results reveal a powerful approach, showing that in one setting, uncurated text phenotypes can be used for differential diagnosis of common diseases, making use of information both inside and outside the setting. While the methods themselves should be explored for further optimisation, they could be applied to a variety of clinical tasks, such as differential diagnosis, cohort discovery, document and text classification, and outcome prediction.

Indexed as

Rare DiseasesSemanticsDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansPhenotypeDifferential diagnosisMimic-iiiOntologySemantic similaritySemantic web

Identifiers

PMID33836447
PMCPMC8204262

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.