MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531904844 · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzw104.50

ISQUA16-1878ARE STATISTICAL NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING MODELS FOR PNEUMONIA SURVEILLANCE GENERALIZABLE ACROSS ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS?

2016· article· en· W2531904844 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christian M. Rochefort, Aman Verma, David L. Buckeridge, Alan J. Forster

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryBenchmarkingPneumoniaMedicineHealth careAcute careHealth recordsEvent (particle physics)Natural language processingMedical emergencyComputer scienceData scienceIntensive care medicineArtificial intelligenceStatisticsInternal medicineBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural language processing (NLP) models are increasingly used for adverse event (AE) surveillance in acute care hospitals, but limited information is available on their generalizability, which is important for valid benchmarking of AE data across institutions. We examined the generalizability of a statistical NLP model for identifying pneumonia from electronic health record (EHR) data; a common AE that is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and cost. We randomly sampled 4,000 narrative reports of chest radiological examinations performed at a university health network (UHN) in Quebec (Canada) between 2010 and 2014. We manually identified pneumonia within each report, which served as our reference standard. We used a nested cross-validation approach to train and validate a support vector machine (SVM) model predicting pneumonia. This model was then applied to a random sample of 2,281 narrative radiology reports from another UHN in Ontario (Canada), and accuracy was measured. The accuracy of the Quebec model, as applied to Ontario data, was compared to that of two alternative models: 1) a model recalibrated on Ontario data and; 2) a model trained and validated using all available data (pooled Quebec-Ontario model).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.422 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Quality in Health CareSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207