Cited by 144Machine Learning in HealthcareHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringECG Monitoring and Analysis

RAIM: Recurrent Attentive and Intensive Model of Multimodal Patient Monitoring Data

Xu, Yanbo, Biswal, Siddharth, Deshpande, Shriprasad R., Maher, Kevin O., Sun, Jimeng·2018·Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining

Abstract

With the improvement of medical data capturing, vast amount of continuous patient monitoring data, e.g., electrocardiogram (ECG), real-time vital signs and medications, become available for clinical decision support at intensive care units (ICUs). However, it becomes increasingly challenging to model such data, due to high density of the monitoring data, heterogeneous data types and the requirement for interpretable models.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3219819.3220051

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Prior studies have shown that multimodal models outperform single-modality models in predictive performance.

    “All of these studies have shown that multimodal models outperform single-modality models in predictive performance.”
  • Intermediate fusion methods modeled each modality separately over time before integrating learned representations using concatenation or attention, but most relied on retrospective alignment within relatively coarse time windows.

    “Intermediate fusion methods modeled each modality separately over time before integrating learned representations using concatenation [57,58] or attention [18,59], but most relied on retrospective alignment within relatively coarse time windows.”
  • An attention mechanism was adopted in 13 of the 49 included studies to improve performance and provide a degree of interpretability.

    “To improve performance and provide a degree of interpretability to the model, an attention mechanism is adopted in 13 studies [6,14,27,31,43,57,64,72,76–78,80,88].”
  • For outcomes that happen in hospital, such as inpatient mortality, length-of-stay, and intervention prediction, observation windows at hour level are developed.

    “On the contrary, for those outcomes that happen in hospital, such as inpatient mortality [14,57,61,65], length-of-stay [14,83], and intervention prediction [32,55,65], observation windows at hour level are developed.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xu, Y., Biswal, S., Deshpande, S. R., Maher, K. O., & Sun, J.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Emory University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-07-19
Pages
2565-2573
OpenAlex
W2884555939
Cited by
144
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 1
FWCI
7.16
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1R01MD011682-01, R56HL138415)
  • National Science Foundation (IIS-#1418511, CCF-#1533768)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
Keywords
clinical decision support, intensive care unit, continuous patient monitoring, electrocardiogram, vital signs, drug information, interpretable models, heterogeneous data types

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