Stroke Outcome Measurements From Electronic Medical Records: Cross-sectional Study on the Effectiveness of Neural and Nonneural Classifiers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: With the rapid adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs), there is an ever-increasing opportunity to collect data and extract knowledge from EMRs to support patient-centered stroke management. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of state-of-the-art automatic text classification methods in classifying data to support the prediction of clinical patient outcomes and the extraction of patient characteristics from EMRs. METHODS: Our study addressed the computational problems of information extraction and automatic text classification. We identified essential tasks to be considered in an ischemic stroke value-based program. The 30 selected tasks were classified (manually labeled by specialists) according to the following value agenda: tier 1 (achieved health care status), tier 2 (recovery process), care related (clinical management and risk scores), and baseline characteristics. The analyzed data set was retrospectively extracted from the EMRs of patients with stroke from a private Brazilian hospital between 2018 and 2019. A total of 44,206 sentences from free-text medical records in Portuguese were used to train and develop 10 supervised computational machine learning methods, including state-of-the-art neural and nonneural methods, along with ontological rules. As an experimental protocol, we used a 5-fold cross-validation procedure repeated 6 times, along with subject-wise sampling. A heatmap was used to display comparative result analyses according to the best algorithmic effectiveness (F1 score), supported by statistical significance tests. A feature importance analysis was conducted to provide insights into the results. RESULTS: The top-performing models were support vector machines trained with lexical and semantic textual features, showing the importance of dealing with noise in EMR textual representations. The support vector machine models produced statistically superior results in 71% (17/24) of tasks, with an F1 score >80% regarding care-related tasks (patient treatment location, fall risk, thrombolytic therapy, and pressure ulcer risk), the process of recovery (ability to feed orally or ambulate and communicate), health care status achieved (mortality), and baseline characteristics (diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and smoking status). Neural methods were largely outperformed by more traditional nonneural methods, given the characteristics of the data set. Ontological rules were also effective in tasks such as baseline characteristics (alcoholism, atrial fibrillation, and coronary artery disease) and the Rankin scale. The complementarity in effectiveness among models suggests that a combination of models could enhance the results and cover more tasks in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in information technology capacity are essential for scalability and agility in measuring health status outcomes. This study allowed us to measure effectiveness and identify opportunities for automating the classification of outcomes of specific tasks related to clinical conditions of stroke victims, and thus ultimately assess the possibility of proactively using these machine learning techniques in real-world situations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,059 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».