MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904119616 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33011246

Learning Phenotypes and Dynamic Patient Representations via RNN Regularized Collective Non-Negative Tensor Factorization

2019· article· en· W2904119616 on OpenAlexaff
Kejing Yin, Dong Qian, William K. Cheung, Benjamin C. M. Fung, Jonathan Poon

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegularization (linguistics)Computer scienceTensor (intrinsic definition)Temporal databaseArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-negative Tensor Factorization (NTF) has been shown effective to discover clinically relevant and interpretable phenotypes from Electronic Health Records (EHR). Existing NTF based computational phenotyping models aggregate data over the observation window, resulting in the learned phenotypes being mixtures of disease states appearing at different times. We argue that by separating the clinical events happening at different times in the input tensor, the temporal dynamics and the disease progression within the observation window could be modeled and the learned phenotypes will correspond to more specific disease states. Yet how to construct the tensor for data samples with different temporal lengths and properly capture the temporal relationship specific to each individual data sample remains an open challenge. In this paper, we propose a novel Collective Non-negative Tensor Factorization (CNTF) model where each patient is represented by a temporal tensor, and all of the temporal tensors are factorized collectively with the phenotype definitions being shared across all patients. The proposed CNTF model is also flexible to incorporate non-temporal data modality and RNN-based temporal regularization. We validate the proposed model using MIMIC-III dataset, and the empirical results show that the learned phenotypes are clinically interpretable. Moreover, the proposed CNTF model outperforms the state-of-the-art computational phenotyping models for the mortality prediction task.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207