Standard Vocabularies to Improve Machine Learning Model Transferability With Electronic Health Record Data: Retrospective Cohort Study Using Health Care–Associated Infection
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background With the widespread adoption of electronic healthcare records (EHRs) by US hospitals, there is an opportunity to leverage this data for the development of predictive algorithms to improve clinical care. A key barrier in model development and implementation includes the external validation of model discrimination, which is rare and often results in worse performance. One reason why machine learning models are not externally generalizable is data heterogeneity. A potential solution to address the substantial data heterogeneity between health care systems is to use standard vocabularies to map EHR data elements. The advantage of these vocabularies is a hierarchical relationship between elements, which allows the aggregation of specific clinical features to more general grouped concepts. Objective This study aimed to evaluate grouping EHR data using standard vocabularies to improve the transferability of machine learning models for the detection of postoperative health care–associated infections across institutions with different EHR systems. Methods Patients who underwent surgery from the University of Utah Health and Intermountain Healthcare from July 2014 to August 2017 with complete follow-up data were included. The primary outcome was a health care–associated infection within 30 days of the procedure. EHR data from 0-30 days after the operation were mapped to standard vocabularies and grouped using the hierarchical relationships of the vocabularies. Model performance was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and F1-score in internal and external validations. To evaluate model transferability, a difference-in-difference metric was defined as the difference in performance drop between internal and external validations for the baseline and grouped models. Results A total of 5775 patients from the University of Utah and 15,434 patients from Intermountain Healthcare were included. The prevalence of selected outcomes was from 4.9% (761/15,434) to 5% (291/5775) for surgical site infections, from 0.8% (44/5775) to 1.1% (171/15,434) for pneumonia, from 2.6% (400/15,434) to 3% (175/5775) for sepsis, and from 0.8% (125/15,434) to 0.9% (50/5775) for urinary tract infections. In all outcomes, the grouping of data using standard vocabularies resulted in a reduced drop in AUC and F1-score in external validation compared to baseline features (all P<.001, except urinary tract infection AUC: P=.002). The difference-in-difference metrics ranged from 0.005 to 0.248 for AUC and from 0.075 to 0.216 for F1-score. Conclusions We demonstrated that grouping machine learning model features based on standard vocabularies improved model transferability between data sets across 2 institutions. Improving model transferability using standard vocabularies has the potential to improve the generalization of clinical prediction models across the health care system.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».