PhenoLines: Phenotype Comparison Visualizations for Disease Subtyping via Topic Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PhenoLines is a visual analysis tool for the interpretation of disease subtypes, derived from the application of topic models to clinical data. Topic models enable one to mine cross-sectional patient comorbidity data (e.g., electronic health records) and construct disease subtypes-each with its own temporally evolving prevalence and co-occurrence of phenotypes-without requiring aligned longitudinal phenotype data for all patients. However, the dimensionality of topic models makes interpretation challenging, and de facto analyses provide little intuition regarding phenotype relevance or phenotype interrelationships. PhenoLines enables one to compare phenotype prevalence within and across disease subtype topics, thus supporting subtype characterization, a task that involves identifying a proposed subtype's dominant phenotypes, ages of effect, and clinical validity. We contribute a data transformation workflow that employs the Human Phenotype Ontology to hierarchically organize phenotypes and aggregate the evolving probabilities produced by topic models. We introduce a novel measure of phenotype relevance that can be used to simplify the resulting topology. The design of PhenoLines was motivated by formative interviews with machine learning and clinical experts. We describe the collaborative design process, distill high-level tasks, and report on initial evaluations with machine learning experts and a medical domain expert. These results suggest that PhenoLines demonstrates promising approaches to support the characterization and optimization of topic 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it