Automatic International Classification of Diseases Coding System: Deep Contextualized Language Model With Rule-Based Approaches
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background The tenth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) is widely used for epidemiological research and health management. The clinical modification (CM) and procedure coding system (PCS) of ICD-10 were developed to describe more clinical details with increasing diagnosis and procedure codes and applied in disease-related groups for reimbursement. The expansion of codes made the coding time-consuming and less accurate. The state-of-the-art model using deep contextual word embeddings was used for automatic multilabel text classification of ICD-10. In addition to input discharge diagnoses (DD), the performance can be improved by appropriate preprocessing methods for the text from other document types, such as medical history, comorbidity and complication, surgical method, and special examination. Objective This study aims to establish a contextual language model with rule-based preprocessing methods to develop the model for ICD-10 multilabel classification. Methods We retrieved electronic health records from a medical center. We first compared different word embedding methods. Second, we compared the preprocessing methods using the best-performing embeddings. We compared biomedical bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BioBERT), clinical generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding (Clinical XLNet), label tree-based attention-aware deep model for high-performance extreme multilabel text classification (AttentionXLM), and word-to-vector (Word2Vec) to predict ICD-10-CM. To compare different preprocessing methods for ICD-10-CM, we included DD, medical history, and comorbidity and complication as inputs. We compared the performance of ICD-10-CM prediction using different preprocesses, including definition training, external cause code removal, number conversion, and combination code filtering. For the ICD-10 PCS, the model was trained using different combinations of DD, surgical method, and key words of special examination. The micro F1 score and the micro area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were used to compare the model’s performance with that of different preprocessing methods. Results BioBERT had an F1 score of 0.701 and outperformed other models such as Clinical XLNet, AttentionXLM, and Word2Vec. For the ICD-10-CM, the model had an F1 score that significantly increased from 0.749 (95% CI 0.744-0.753) to 0.769 (95% CI 0.764-0.773) with the ICD-10 definition training, external cause code removal, number conversion, and combination code filter. For the ICD-10-PCS, the model had an F1 score that significantly increased from 0.670 (95% CI 0.663-0.678) to 0.726 (95% CI 0.719-0.732) with a combination of discharge diagnoses, surgical methods, and key words of special examination. With our preprocessing methods, the model had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.853 (95% CI 0.849-0.855) and 0.831 (95% CI 0.827-0.834) for ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS, respectively. Conclusions The performance of our model with the pretrained contextualized language model and rule-based preprocessing method is better than that of the state-of-the-art model for ICD-10-CM or ICD-10-PCS. This study highlights the importance of rule-based preprocessing methods based on coder coding rules.
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 | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
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 ».