Joint Learning of Phenotypes and Diagnosis-Medication Correspondence via Hidden Interaction Tensor Factorization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-negative tensor factorization has been shown effective for discovering phenotypes from the EHR data with minimal human supervision. In most cases, an interaction tensor of the elements in the EHR (e.g., diagnoses and medications) has to be first established before the factorization can be applied. Such correspondence information however is often missing. While different heuristics can be used to estimate the missing correspondence, any errors introduced will in turn cause inaccuracy for the subsequent phenotype discovery task. This is especially true for patients with multiple diseases diagnosed (e.g., under critical care). To alleviate this limitation, we propose the hidden interaction tensor factorization (HITF) where the diagnosis-medication correspondence and the underlying phenotypes are inferred simultaneously. We formulate it under a Poisson non-negative tensor factorization framework and learn the HITF model via maximum likelihood estimation. For performance evaluation, we applied HITF to the MIMIC III dataset. Our empirical results show that both the phenotypes and the correspondence inferred are clinically meaningful. In addition, the inferred HITF model outperforms a number of state-of-the-art methods for mortality prediction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".