Cited by 39Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Combining chest X-rays and electronic health record (EHR) data using machine learning to diagnose acute respiratory failure

Open access
Jabbour, Sarah, Fouhey, David, Kazerooni, Ella, Wiens, Jenna, Sjoding, Michael W·2022·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Objective: When patients develop acute respiratory failure (ARF), accurately identifying the underlying etiology is essential for determining the best treatment. However, differentiating between common medical diagnoses can be challenging in clinical practice. Machine learning models could improve medical diagnosis by aiding in the diagnostic evaluation of these patients. Materials and Methods: Machine learning models were trained to predict the common causes of ARF (pneumonia, heart failure, and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]). Models were trained using chest radiographs and clinical data from the electronic health record (EHR) and applied to an internal and external cohort. Results: The internal cohort of 1618 patients included 508 (31%) with pneumonia, 363 (22%) with heart failure, and 137 (8%) with COPD based on physician chart review. A model combining chest radiographs and EHR data outperformed models based on each modality alone. Models had similar or better performance compared to a randomly selected physician reviewer. For pneumonia, the combined model area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.79 (0.77–0.79), image model AUROC was 0.74 (0.72–0.75), and EHR model AUROC was 0.74 (0.70–0.76). For heart failure, combined: 0.83 (0.77–0.84), image: 0.80 (0.71–0.81), and EHR: 0.79 (0.75–0.82). For COPD, combined: AUROC = 0.88 (0.83–0.91), image: 0.83 (0.77–0.89), and EHR: 0.80 (0.76–0.84). In the external cohort, performance was consistent for heart failure and increased for COPD, but declined slightly for pneumonia. Conclusions: Machine learning models combining chest radiographs and EHR data can accurately differentiate between common causes of ARF. Further work is needed to determine how these models could act as a diagnostic aid to clinicians in clinical settings.

Overview

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 · 10.1093/jamia/ocac030

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Calibration metrics are crucial for assessing model reliability.

    “which are crucial for assessing model reliability [38,63,113,120,121].”
  • Only 8 studies performed independent external validation, revealing an average 3.5% decrease in AUC on external datasets.

    “In this review, only 8 studies performed independent external validation [38,41,42,46,63,93,113,114], revealing an average 3.5% decrease in AUC on external datasets.”
  • Only 5 studies reported calibration metrics.

    “In addition, only 5 studies reported calibration metrics, which are crucial for assessing model reliability [38,63,113,120,121].”
  • The combination of imaging and EHR data outperforms each of these modalities alone to differentiate between common causes of acute respiratory failure, such as heart failure, pneumonia or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

    “and to differentiate between common causes of acute respiratory failure, such as heart failure, pneumonia or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 100”

    From Multimodal biomedical AI (2022) · cites this paper as [100]

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2015, Improving Diagnosis in Health Care

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jabbour, S., Fouhey, D., Kazerooni, E., Wiens, J., & Sjoding, M. W.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Sjoding, Michael W
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2022-03-10
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
1060-1068
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W4213439844
Cited by
39
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5
FWCI
2.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (K01HL136687, R01 HL158626, R01 LM013325)
  • University of Michigan Precision Health Award
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
acute respiratory failure, chest radiograph, electronic health records, pneumonia, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, multimodal diagnosis, clinical decision support, external validation
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Heart Failure, Humans, Respiratory Insufficiency, X-Rays, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Electronic Health Records

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