MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2805828890 · doi:10.1101/336560

Diagnostic algorithms to study post-concussion syndrome using electronic health records: validating a method to capture an important patient population

2018· preprint· en· W2805828890 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jessica Dennis, Aaron M. Yengo‐Kahn, Paul Kirby, Gary S. Solomon, Nancy J. Cox, Scott L. Zuckerman

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGeorgia Clinical and Translational Science AllianceVanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchNational Institutes of HealthVanderbilt University Medical CenterVanderbilt University
KeywordsConcussionMedical diagnosisMedicineDiagnosis codeMedical recordAlgorithmElectronic health recordPopulationHealth recordsAnxietyMachine learningPsychiatryPoison controlInternal medicineHealth careMedical emergencyInjury preventionComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Post-concussion syndrome (PCS) is characterized by persistent cognitive, somatic, and emotional symptoms after a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Genetic and other biological variables may contribute to PCS etiology, and the emergence of biobanks linked to electronic health records (EHR) offers new opportunities for research on PCS. We sought to validate the use of EHR data of PCS patients by comparing two diagnostic algorithms. Methods Vanderbilt University Medical Center curates a de-identified database of 2.8 million patient EHR. We developed two EHR-based algorithmic approaches that identified individuals with PCS by: (i) natural language processing (NLP) of narrative text in the EHR combined with structured demographic, diagnostic, and encounter data; or (ii) coded billing and procedure data. The predictive value of each algorithm was assessed, and cases and controls identified by each approach were compared on demographic and medical characteristics. Results First, the NLP algorithm identified 507 cases and 10,857 controls. The positive predictive value (PPV) in the cases was 82% and the negative predictive value in the controls was 78%. Second, the coded algorithm identified 1,142 patients with two or more PCS billing codes and had a PPV of 76%. Comparisons of PCS controls to both case groups recovered known epidemiology of PCS: cases were more likely than controls to be female and to have pre-morbid diagnoses of anxiety, migraine, and PTSD. In contrast, controls and cases were equally likely to have ADHD and learning disabilities, in accordance with the findings of recent systematic reviews of PCS risk factors. Conclusions EHR are a valuable research tool for PCS. Ascertainment based on coded data alone had a predictive value comparable to an NLP algorithm, recovered known PCS risk factors, and maximized the number of included patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.165
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.165
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→