Electronic medical record phenotyping using the anchor and learn framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMRs) hold a tremendous amount of information about patients that is relevant to determining the optimal approach to patient care. As medicine becomes increasingly precise, a patient's electronic medical record phenotype will play an important role in triggering clinical decision support systems that can deliver personalized recommendations in real time. Learning with anchors presents a method of efficiently learning statistically driven phenotypes with minimal manual intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a phenotype library that uses both structured and unstructured data from the EMR to represent patients for real-time clinical decision support. Eight of the phenotypes were evaluated using retrospective EMR data on emergency department patients using a set of prospectively gathered gold standard labels. RESULTS: We built a phenotype library with 42 publicly available phenotype definitions. Using information from triage time, the phenotype classifiers have an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of infection 0.89, cancer 0.88, immunosuppressed 0.85, septic shock 0.93, nursing home 0.87, anticoagulated 0.83, cardiac etiology 0.89, and pneumonia 0.90. Using information available at the time of disposition from the emergency department, the AUC values are infection 0.91, cancer 0.95, immunosuppressed 0.90, septic shock 0.97, nursing home 0.91, anticoagulated 0.94, cardiac etiology 0.92, and pneumonia 0.97. DISCUSSION: The resulting phenotypes are interpretable and fast to build, and perform comparably to statistically learned phenotypes developed with 5000 manually labeled patients. CONCLUSION: Learning with anchors is an attractive option for building a large public repository of phenotype definitions that can be used for a range of health IT applications, including real-time decision support.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".