MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Natural Language Processing to Assess Documentation of Features of Critical Illness in Discharge Documents of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Survivors

2016· article· en· W2462432627 on OpenAlexaff
Gary E. Weissman, Michael O. Harhay, Ricardo Lugo, Barry D. Fuchs, Scott D. Halpern, Mark E. Mikkelsen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Economics
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineDocumentationConcordanceARDSIntensive care unitEmergency medicineConfidence intervalMEDLINEChartAcute respiratory distressMedical recordIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Transitions to outpatient care are crucial after critical illness, but the documentation practices in discharge documents after critical illness are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the rates of documentation of various features of critical illness in discharge documents of patients diagnosed with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) during their hospital stay. METHODS: We used natural language processing tools to build a keyword-based classifier that categorizes discharge documents by presence of terms from four groups of keywords related to critical illness. We used a multivariable modified Poisson regression model to infer patient- and hospital-level characteristics associated with documentation of relevant keywords. A manual chart review was used to validate the accuracy of the keyword-based classifier, and to assess for ARDS documentation during the hospital stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 815 discharge documents, ARDS was identified in only 111 (13%). Mechanical ventilation was identified in 770 (92%) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission in 693 (83%) of discharge documents. Symptoms or recommendations related to post-intensive care syndrome were included in 306 (38%) of discharge documents. Patient age (older; relative risk [RR] = 0.97/yr, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.96-0.98) and higher PaO2:FiO2 (decreasing illness severity; RR = 0.96/10-unit increment, 95% CI = 0.93-0.98) were associated with decreased documentation of ARDS. Being discharged from a surgical (RR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.22-0.50) compared with a medicine service was also associated with decreased rates of ARDS documentation. The manual chart review revealed 98% concordance between ARDS documentation in the discharge summary and during the hospital stay. Accuracy of the document classifier was 100% for ARDS and mechanical ventilation, 98% for ICU admission, and 95% for symptoms of post-intensive care syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: In the discharge documents of survivors of ARDS, ARDS itself is rarely mentioned, but mechanical ventilation and ICU stay frequently are. The low rates of documentation of ARDS appear to be concordant with low rates of documentation during the hospital stay, consistent with known underrecognition in the ICU. Natural language processing tools can be used to effectively analyze large numbers of discharge documents of patients with critical illness.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.388 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207