Cited by 88Data-Driven Disease SurveillanceMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Comparison of machine learning classifiers for influenza detection from emergency department free-text reports

Open access
López Pineda, Arturo, Ye, Ye, Visweswaran, Shyam, Cooper, Gregory F., Wagner, Michael M., Tsui, Fuchiang (Rich)·2015·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Influenza is a yearly recurrent disease that has the potential to become a pandemic. An effective biosurveillance system is required for early detection of the disease. In our previous studies, we have shown that electronic Emergency Department (ED) free-text reports can be of value to improve influenza detection in real time. This paper studies seven machine learning (ML) classifiers for influenza detection, compares their diagnostic capabilities against an expert-built influenza Bayesian classifier, and evaluates different ways of handling missing clinical information from the free-text reports. We identified 31,268 ED reports from 4 hospitals between 2008 and 2011 to form two different datasets: training (468 cases, 29,004 controls), and test (176 cases and 1620 controls). We employed Topaz, a natural language processing (NLP) tool, to extract influenza-related findings and to encode them into one of three values: Acute, Non-acute, and Missing. Results show that all ML classifiers had areas under ROCs (AUC) ranging from 0.88 to 0.93, and performed significantly better than the expert-built Bayesian model. Missing clinical information marked as a value of missing (not missing at random) had a consistently improved performance among 3 (out of 4) ML classifiers when it was compared with the configuration of not assigning a value of missing (missing completely at random). The case/control ratios did not affect the classification performance given the large number of training cases. Our study demonstrates ED reports in conjunction with the use of ML and NLP with the handling of missing value information have a great potential for the detection of infectious diseases.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.08.019

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many reviews examine the strengths and weaknesses of different machine learning algorithms on single-omics and multi-omics datasets.

    “In the literature, many reviews cover the key strengths and weaknesses of different ML algorithms using single omics (Amancio et al., 2014;López Pineda et al., 2015;Sakr et al., 2017;Uddin et al., 2019) and multi-omics (Ma et al., 2016;Francescatto et al., 2018;J. Xu et al., 2019;Sathyanarayanan et al., 2020) datasets.”

    From Using machine learning approaches for multi-omics data analysis: A review (2021) · cites this paper as López Pineda et al., 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4]Tsui F-C Espino JU Sriburadej T Su H Dowling JN Building an automated Bayesian case detection system Emerging Health Threats Journal 2011 68 9 10.3134/ehtj.10.101 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
López Pineda, A., Ye, Y., Visweswaran, S., Cooper, G. F., Wagner, M. M., & Tsui, F. (.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Tsui, Fuchiang (Rich)
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
58
Pages
60-69
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1927503436
Cited by
88
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0911032)
  • Pennsylvania Department of Health
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U38HK000063, P01HK000086)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM012095, R01LM010020, R01LM011370)
  • Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Data-Driven Disease Surveillance
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
influenza virus detection, machine learning classifiers, natural language processing, topaz, biosurveillance, infectious disease detection, Bayesian classifier, electronic health records
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Influenza, Human

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review