↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Can machine learning complement traditional medical device surveillance? A case-study of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter–defibrillators

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#19 of 313)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
42 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Can machine learning complement traditional medical device surveillance? A case-study of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter–defibrillators
Published in
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/mder.s138158
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph S Ross, Jonathan Bates, Craig S Parzynski, Joseph G Akar, Jeptha P Curtis, Nihar R Desai, James V Freeman, Ginger M Gamble, Richard Kuntz, Shu-Xia Li, Danica Marinac-Dabic, Frederick A Masoudi, Sharon-Lise T Normand, Isuru Ranasinghe, Richard E Shaw, Harlan M Krumholz

Abstract

Machine learning methods may complement traditional analytic methods for medical device surveillance. Using data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) linked to Medicare administrative claims for longitudinal follow-up, we applied three statistical approaches to safety-signal detection for commonly used dual-chamber ICDs that used two propensity score (PS) models: one specified by subject-matter experts (PS-SME), and the other one by machine learning-based selection (PS-ML). The first approach used PS-SME and cumulative incidence (time-to-event), the second approach used PS-SME and cumulative risk (Data Extraction and Longitudinal Trend Analysis [DELTA]), and the third approach used PS-ML and cumulative risk (embedded feature selection). Safety-signal surveillance was conducted for eleven dual-chamber ICD models implanted at least 2,000 times over 3 years. Between 2006 and 2010, there were 71,948 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received dual-chamber ICDs. Cumulative device-specific unadjusted 3-year event rates varied for three surveyed safety signals: death from any cause, 12.8%-20.9%; nonfatal ICD-related adverse events, 19.3%-26.3%; and death from any cause or nonfatal ICD-related adverse event, 27.1%-37.6%. Agreement among safety signals detected/not detected between the time-to-event and DELTA approaches was 90.9% (360 of 396, k=0.068), between the time-to-event and embedded feature-selection approaches was 91.7% (363 of 396, k=-0.028), and between the DELTA and embedded feature selection approaches was 88.1% (349 of 396, k=-0.042). Three statistical approaches, including one machine learning method, identified important safety signals, but without exact agreement. Ensemble methods may be needed to detect all safety signals for further evaluation during medical device surveillance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 25%
Engineering 7 10%
Computer Science 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 24 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,487,845
of 25,758,695 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#19
of 313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,634
of 328,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them