Augmented Intelligence for Clinical Discovery in Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy Using Outlier Analysis.
augmented intelligence
clinical discovery
clinical trials
hdp
hypertensive disorders of pregnancy
preeclampsia treatment
preeclampsia-eclampsia
real-world data
research methods and design
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2023
Mar 2023
Historique:
accepted:
27
03
2023
medline:
4
4
2023
entrez:
3
4
2023
pubmed:
4
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Objectives Clinical discoveries are heralded by observing unique and unusual clinical cases. The effort of identifying such cases rests on the shoulders of busy clinicians. We assess the feasibility and applicability of an augmented intelligence framework to accelerate the rate of clinical discovery in preeclampsia and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy-an area that has seen little change in its clinical management. Methods We conducted a retrospective exploratory outlier analysis of participants enrolled in the folic acid clinical trial (FACT, N=2,301) and the Ottawa and Kingston birth cohort (OaK, N=8,085). We applied two outlier analysis methods: extreme misclassification contextual outlier and isolation forest point outlier. The extreme misclassification contextual outlier is based on a random forest predictive model for the outcome of preeclampsia in FACT and hypertensive disorder of pregnancy in OaK. We defined outliers in the extreme misclassification approach as mislabelled observations with a confidence level of more than 90%. Within the isolation forest approach, we defined outliers as observations with an average path length z score less or equal to -3, or more or equal to 3. Content experts reviewed the identified outliers and determined if they represented a potential novelty that could conceivably lead to a clinical discovery. Results In the FACT study, we identified 19 outliers using the isolation forest algorithm and 13 outliers using the random forest extreme misclassification approach. We determined that three (15.8%) and 10 (76.9%) were potential novelties, respectively. Out of 8,085 participants in the OaK study, we identified 172 outliers using the isolation forest algorithm and 98 outliers using the random forest extreme misclassification approach; four (2.3%) and 32 (32.7%), respectively, were potential novelties. Overall, the outlier analysis part of the augmented intelligence framework identified a total of 302 outliers. These were subsequently reviewed by content experts, representing the human part of the augmented intelligence framework. The clinical review determined that 49 of the 302 outliers represented potential novelties. Conclusions Augmented intelligence using extreme misclassification outlier analysis is a feasible and applicable approach for accelerating the rate of clinical discoveries. The use of an extreme misclassification contextual outlier analysis approach has resulted in a higher proportion of potential novelties than using the more traditional point outlier isolation forest approach. This finding was consistent in both the clinical trial and real-world cohort study data. Using augmented intelligence through outlier analysis has the potential to speed up the process of identifying potential clinical discoveries. This approach can be replicated across clinical disciplines and could exist within electronic medical records systems to automatically identify outliers within clinical notes to clinical experts.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37009347
doi: 10.7759/cureus.36909
pmc: PMC10065308
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e36909Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023, Janoudi et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Med Case Rep. 2016 Apr 06;10:86
pubmed: 27048362
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):853-857
pubmed: 32161941
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Mar;202(3):239.e1-239.e10
pubmed: 20207239
BMC Res Notes. 2014 Apr 23;7:264
pubmed: 24758689
J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 17;22(5):e19087
pubmed: 32401210
J Reprod Immunol. 2017 Sep;123:72-77
pubmed: 28941881
Ann Intern Med. 2001 Feb 20;134(4):330-4
pubmed: 11182844
Can Fam Physician. 2014 Nov;60(11):966-7
pubmed: 25392428
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011 Nov;33(11):1124-33
pubmed: 22082786
Ann Fam Med. 2008 Jan-Feb;6(1):3-5
pubmed: 18195308
Lancet. 2010 Aug 21;376(9741):631-44
pubmed: 20598363
Indian J Med Res. 2020 May;151(5):490-492
pubmed: 32611918
Perspect Biol Med. 2004 Autumn;47(4):597-607
pubmed: 15467181
J Med Syst. 2020 Feb 4;44(3):59
pubmed: 32020374
Nature. 2020 Sep;585(7825):357-362
pubmed: 32939066
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Mar;218(3):287-293.e1
pubmed: 29138036
BMJ. 2018 Sep 12;362:k3478
pubmed: 30209050
Hypertension. 2008 Apr;51(4):982-8
pubmed: 18259004
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016 Jun 6;11(6):1102-13
pubmed: 27094609
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):55-63
pubmed: 25560714
J Reprod Immunol. 2013 Sep;99(1-2):1-9
pubmed: 23890710
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2184-2186
pubmed: 32396623
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Nov;127:198-201
pubmed: 32603686
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2010 Sep-Oct;39(5):510-8
pubmed: 20919997
Can Fam Physician. 2004 Sep;50:1192-3, 1200-2
pubmed: 15508360
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 May 9;19(1):163
pubmed: 31072315