Learning statistical models of phenotypes using noisy labeled training data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Traditionally, patient groups with a phenotype are selected through rule-based definitions whose creation and validation are time-consuming. Machine learning approaches to electronic phenotyping are limited by the paucity of labeled training datasets. We demonstrate the feasibility of utilizing semi-automatically labeled training sets to create phenotype models via machine learning, using a comprehensive representation of the patient medical record. METHODS: We use a list of keywords specific to the phenotype of interest to generate noisy labeled training data. We train L1 penalized logistic regression models for a chronic and an acute disease and evaluate the performance of the models against a gold standard. RESULTS: Our models for Type 2 diabetes mellitus and myocardial infarction achieve precision and accuracy of 0.90, 0.89, and 0.86, 0.89, respectively. Local implementations of the previously validated rule-based definitions for Type 2 diabetes mellitus and myocardial infarction achieve precision and accuracy of 0.96, 0.92 and 0.84, 0.87, respectively.We have demonstrated feasibility of learning phenotype models using imperfectly labeled data for a chronic and acute phenotype. Further research in feature engineering and in specification of the keyword list can improve the performance of the models and the scalability of the approach. CONCLUSIONS: Our method provides an alternative to manual labeling for creating training sets for statistical models of phenotypes. Such an approach can accelerate research with large observational healthcare datasets and may also be used to create local phenotype models.
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 | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".