Automating Access to Real-World Evidence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Real-world evidence is important in regulatory and funding decisions. Manual data extraction from electronic health records (EHRs) is time-consuming and challenging to maintain. Automated extraction using natural language processing (NLP) and artificial intelligence may facilitate this process. Whereas NLP offers a faster solution than manual methods of extraction, the validity of extracted data remains in question. The current study compared manual and automated data extraction from the EHR of patients with advanced lung cancer. Methods: Previously, we extracted EHRs from 1209 patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (stage IIIB or IV) between January 2015 and December 2017 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, Canada) using the commercially available artificial intelligence engine, DARWEN (Pentavere, Ontario, Canada). For comparison, 100 of 333 patients that received systemic therapy were randomly selected and clinical data manually extracted by two trained abstractors using the same accepted gold standard feature definitions, including patient, disease characteristics, and treatment data. All cases were re-reviewed by an expert adjudicator. Accuracy and concordance between automated and manual methods are reported. Results: Automated extraction required considerably less time (<1 day) than manual extraction (∼225 person-hr). The collection of demographic data (age, sex, diagnosis) was highly accurate and concordant with both methods (96%-100%). Accuracy (for either extraction approach) and concordance were lower for unstructured data elements in EHR, such as performance status, date of diagnosis, and smoking status (NLP accuracy: 88%-94%; Manual accuracy: 78%-94%; concordance: 71%-82%). Concurrent medications (86%-100%) and comorbid conditions (96%-100%), were reported with high accuracy and concordance. Treatment details were also accurately captured with both methods (84%-100%) and highly concordant (83%-99%). Detection of whether biomarker testing was performed was highly accurate and concordant (96%-98%), although detection of biomarker test results was more variable (accuracy 84%-100%, concordance 84%-99%). Features with syntactic or semantic variation requiring clinical interpretation were extracted with slightly lower accuracy by both NLP and manual review. For example, metastatic sites were more accurately identified through NLP extraction (NLP: 88%-99%; manual: 71%-100%; concordance: 70%-99%) with the exception of lung and lymph node metastases (NLP: 66%-71%; manual: 87%-92%; concordance: 58%) owing to analogous terms used in radiology reports not being included in the accepted gold standard definition. Conclusions: Automated data abstraction from EHR is highly accurate and faster than manual abstraction. Key challenges include poorly structured EHR and the use of analogous terms beyond the accepted gold standard definition. The application of NLP can facilitate real-world evidence studies at a greater scale than could be achieved with manual data extraction.
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 | 0,084 | 0,298 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,020 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,005 |
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 ».