The role of the electronic medical record in the assessment of health related quality of life.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We applied a hybrid Natural Language Processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) approach (NLP-ML) to assessment of health related quality of life (HRQOL). The approach uses text patterns extracted from HRQOL inventories and electronic medical records (EMR) as predictive features for training ML classifiers. On a cohort of 200 patients, our approach agreed with patient self-report (EQ5D) and manual audit of the EMR 65-74% of the time. In an independent cohort of 285 patients, we found no association of HRQOL (by EQ5D or NLP-ML) with quality measures of metabolic control (HbA1c, Blood Pressure, Lipids). In addition; while there was no association between patient self-report of HRQOL and cost of care, abnormalities in Usual Activities and Anxiety/Depression assessed by NLP-ML were 40-70% more likely to be associated with greater health care costs. Our method represents an efficient and scalable surrogate measure of HRQOL to predict healthcare spending in ambulatory diabetes patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".