MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901863036 · doi:10.2196/12577

Medication Use for Childhood Pneumonia at a Children’s Hospital in Shanghai, China: Analysis of Pattern Mining Algorithms

2018· article· en· W2901863036 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chunlei Tang, Huajun Sun, Yun Xiong, Yang Jia-hong, Christopher Vitale, Lu Ruan, Angela Ai, Guangjun Yu, Jing Ma, David O. Bates

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaShanghai Science and Technology Development Foundation
KeywordsPneumoniaData miningComputer scienceMedicineMedical recordData scienceMedical emergencyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pattern mining utilizes multiple algorithms to explore objective and sometimes unexpected patterns in real-world data. This technique could be applied to electronic medical record data mining; however, it first requires a careful clinical assessment and validation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the use of pattern mining techniques on a large clinical dataset to detect treatment and medication use patterns for childhood pneumonia. METHODS: We applied 3 pattern mining algorithms to 680,138 medication administration records from 30,512 childhood inpatients with diagnosis of pneumonia during a 6-year period at a children's hospital in China. Patients' ages ranged from 0 to 17 years, where 37.53% (11,453/30,512) were 0 to 3 months old, 86.55% (26,408/30,512) were under 5 years, 60.37% (18,419/30,512) were male, and 60.10% (18,338/30,512) had a hospital stay of 9 to 15 days. We used the FP-Growth, PrefixSpan, and USpan pattern mining algorithms. The first 2 are more traditional methods of pattern mining and mine a complete set of frequent medication use patterns. PrefixSpan also incorporates an administration sequence. The newer USpan method considers medication utility, defined by the dose, frequency, and timing of use of the 652 individual medications in the dataset. Together, these 3 methods identified the top 10 patterns from 6 age groups, forming a total of 180 distinct medication combinations. These medications encompassed the top 40 (73.66%, 500,982/680,138) most frequently used medications. These patterns were then evaluated by subject matter experts to summarize 5 medication use and 2 treatment patterns. RESULTS: We identified 5 medication use patterns: (1) antiasthmatics and expectorants and corticosteroids, (2) antibiotics and (antiasthmatics or expectorants or corticosteroids), (3) third-generation cephalosporin antibiotics with (or followed by) traditional antibiotics, (4) antibiotics and (medications for enteritis or skin diseases), and (5) (antiasthmatics or expectorants or corticosteroids) and (medications for enteritis or skin diseases). We also identified 2 frequent treatment patterns: (1) 42.89% (291,701/680,138) of specific medication administration records were of intravenous therapy with antibiotics, diluents, and nutritional supplements and (2) 11.53% (78,390/680,138) were of various combinations of inhalation of antiasthmatics, expectorants, or corticosteroids. Fleiss kappa for the subject experts' evaluation was 0.693, indicating moderate agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing a pattern mining approach, we summarized 5 medication use patterns and 2 treatment patterns. These warrant further investigation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207