Evidence mapPaperPMID 35964102Full record

ArticleBioData mining2022

Neural network methods for diagnosing patient conditions from cardiopulmonary exercise testing data.

Donald E Brown, Suchetha Sharma, James A Jablonski, Arthur Weltman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Donald E BrownSchool of Data Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. deb@virginia.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9140-2632
Suchetha SharmaSchool of Data Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
James A JablonskiDepartment of Engineering Systems and Environment, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Arthur WeltmanDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.

Funding

The integrated Translational Health Research Institute of Virginia (iTHRIV): Using Data to Improve HealthUL1TR003015 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI Donald E Brown, KAREN C. JOHNSTON · 2022 to 2023
$9.1M
Naval Postgraduate School N00244-19-1-0005NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003015NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR003015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) provides a reliable and reproducible approach to measuring fitness in patients and diagnosing their health problems. However, the data from CPET consist of multiple time series that require training to interpret. Part of this training teaches the use of flow charts or nested decision trees to interpret the CPET results. This paper investigates the use of two machine learning techniques using neural networks to predict patient health conditions with CPET data in contrast to flow charts. The data for this investigation comes from a small sample of patients with known health problems and who had CPET results. The small size of the sample data also allows us to investigate the use and performance of deep learning neural networks on health care problems with limited amounts of labeled training and testing data.

methodsThis paper compares the current standard for interpreting and classifying CPET data, flowcharts, to neural network techniques, autoencoders and convolutional neural networks (CNN). The study also investigated the performance of principal component analysis (PCA) with logistic regression to provide an additional baseline of comparison to the neural network techniques.

resultsThe patients in the sample had two primary diagnoses: heart failure and metabolic syndrome. All model-based testing was done with 5-fold cross-validation and metrics of precision, recall, F1 score, and accuracy. As a baseline for comparison to our models, the highest performing flow chart method achieved an accuracy of 77%. Both PCA regression and CNN achieved an average accuracy of 90% and outperformed the flow chart methods on all metrics. The autoencoder with logistic regression performed the best on each of the metrics and had an average accuracy of 94%.

conclusionsThis study suggests that machine learning and neural network techniques, in particular, can provide higher levels of accuracy with CPET data than traditional flowchart methods. Further, the CNN performed well with a small data set showing that these techniques can be designed to perform well on small data problems that are often found in health care and the life sciences. Further testing with larger data sets is needed to continue evaluating the use of machine learning to interpret CPET data.

Indexed as

AutoencoderClassifierConvolutional neural networksMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID35964102
PMCPMC9375280

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.