MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949482713 · doi:10.1089/neu.2018.5916

Diagnostic Algorithms to Study Post-Concussion Syndrome Using Electronic Health Records: Validating a Method to Capture an Important Patient Population

2019· article· en· W2949482713 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jessica Dennis, Aaron M. Yengo‐Kahn, Paul Kirby, Gary S. Solomon, Nancy J. Cox, Scott L. Zuckerman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchVanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchNational Institutes of HealthVanderbilt University Medical CenterVanderbilt University
KeywordsConcussionDiagnosis codeMedicineMedical recordMedical diagnosisAlgorithmPopulationAnxietyHealth recordsMachine learningPoison controlPsychiatryInjury preventionHealth careMedical emergencyInternal medicinePathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 (EHRs) offers new opportunities for research on PCS. We sought to validate the EHR data of PCS patients by comparing two diagnostic algorithms deployed in the Vanderbilt University Medical Center de-identified database of 2.8 million patient EHRs. The algorithms identified individuals with PCS by: 1) natural language processing (NLP) of narrative text in the EHR combined with structured demographic, diagnostic, and encounter data; or 2) 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. The NLP algorithm identified 507 cases and 10,857 controls. The negative predictive value in controls was 78% and the positive predictive value (PPV) in cases was 82%. Conversely, the coded algorithm identified 1142 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 post-traumatic stress disorder. In contrast, controls and cases were equally likely to have attention deficit hyperactive disorder and learning disabilities, in accordance with the findings of recent systematic reviews of PCS risk factors. We conclude that EHRs 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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.169
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.169
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207