Detection of Bleeding Events in Electronic Health Record Notes Using Convolutional Neural Network Models Enhanced With Recurrent Neural Network Autoencoders: Deep Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bleeding events are common and critical and may cause significant morbidity and mortality. High incidences of bleeding events are associated with cardiovascular disease in patients on anticoagulant therapy. Prompt and accurate detection of bleeding events is essential to prevent serious consequences. As bleeding events are often described in clinical notes, automatic detection of bleeding events from electronic health record (EHR) notes may improve drug-safety surveillance and pharmacovigilance. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a natural language processing (NLP) system to automatically classify whether an EHR note sentence contains a bleeding event. METHODS: We expert annotated 878 EHR notes (76,577 sentences and 562,630 word-tokens) to identify bleeding events at the sentence level. This annotated corpus was used to train and validate our NLP systems. We developed an innovative hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) autoencoder (HCLA) model that integrates a CNN architecture with a bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM) autoencoder model to leverage large unlabeled EHR data. RESULTS: HCLA achieved the best area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.957) and F1 score (0.938) to identify whether a sentence contains a bleeding event, thereby surpassing the strong baseline support vector machines and other CNN and autoencoder models. CONCLUSIONS: By incorporating a supervised CNN model and a pretrained unsupervised BiLSTM autoencoder, the HCLA achieved high performance in detecting bleeding events.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".