Literature DB >> 26097785

Nonstationary Gaussian Process Regression for Evaluating Clinical Laboratory Test Sampling Strategies.

Thomas A Lasko1.   

Abstract

Sampling repeated clinical laboratory tests with appropriate timing is challenging because the latent physiologic function being sampled is in general nonstationary. When ordering repeated tests, clinicians adopt various simple strategies that may or may not be well suited to the behavior of the function. Previous research on this topic has been primarily focused on cost-driven assessments of oversampling. But for monitoring physiologic state or for retrospective analysis, undersampling can be much more problematic than oversampling. In this paper we analyze hundreds of observation sequences of four different clinical laboratory tests to provide principled, data-driven estimates of undersampling and oversampling, and to assess whether the sampling adapts to changing volatility of the latent function. To do this, we developed a new method for fitting a Gaussian process to samples of a nonstationary latent function. Our method includes an explicit estimate of the latent function's volatility over time, which is deterministically related to its nonstationarity. We find on average that the degree of undersampling is up to an order of magnitude greater than oversampling, and that only a small minority are sampled with an adaptive strategy.

Entities:  

Year:  2015        PMID: 26097785      PMCID: PMC4472307     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Conf AAAI Artif Intell        ISSN: 2159-5399


  4 in total

1.  What proportion of common diagnostic tests appear redundant?

Authors:  D W Bates; D L Boyle; E Rittenberg; G J Kuperman; N Ma'Luf; V Menkin; J W Winkelman; M J Tanasijevic
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.965

2.  Efficient Inference of Gaussian-Process-Modulated Renewal Processes with Application to Medical Event Data.

Authors:  Thomas A Lasko
Journal:  Uncertain Artif Intell       Date:  2014-07

3.  Population-based study of repeat laboratory testing.

Authors:  Carl van Walraven; Michael Raymond
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 8.327

4.  Computational phenotype discovery using unsupervised feature learning over noisy, sparse, and irregular clinical data.

Authors:  Thomas A Lasko; Joshua C Denny; Mia A Levy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total
  3 in total

1.  Comparing lagged linear correlation, lagged regression, Granger causality, and vector autoregression for uncovering associations in EHR data.

Authors:  Matthew E Levine; David J Albers; George Hripcsak
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2017-02-10

2.  Machine Learning and Decision Support in Critical Care.

Authors:  Alistair E W Johnson; Mohammad M Ghassemi; Shamim Nemati; Katherine E Niehaus; David A Clifton; Gari D Clifford
Journal:  Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 10.961

3.  High-fidelity phenotyping: richness and freedom from bias.

Authors:  George Hripcsak; David J Albers
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 4.497

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.