Learning Health System for Breast Cancer: Pilot Project Experience
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinicians need accurate and timely information on the impact of treatments on patient outcomes. The electronic health record (EHR) offers the potential for insight into real-world patient experiences and outcomes, but it is difficult to tap into. Our goal was to apply artificial intelligence technology to the EHR to characterize the clinical course of patients with stage III breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from patients with stage III breast cancer who presented between 2013 and 2015 were extracted from the EHR, de-identified, and imported into the IBM Cloud. Specialized natural language processing (NLP) annotators were developed to extract medical concepts from unstructured clinical text and transform them to structured attributes. In the validation phase, these annotators were applied to 19 additional patients with stage III breast cancer from the same period. The resulting data were compared with that in the medical chart (gold standard) for nine key indicators. RESULTS: Information was extracted for 50 patients, including tumor stage (94% stage IIIA, 6% stage IIIB), age (28% 50 years or younger, 52% between 51 and 70 years, and 24% older than 70 years), receptor status (84% estrogen receptor positive, 74% progesterone receptor positive), and first treatment (72% surgery, 26% chemotherapy, 2% endocrine). Events in the patient's journey were compiled to create a timeline. For 171 data elements, NLP and the chart disagreed for 41 (24%; 95% CI, 17.8% to 31.1%). With additional manipulation using simple logic, the disagreement was reduced to six elements (3.5%; 95% CI, 1.3% to 7.5%; F1 statistic, 0.9694). CONCLUSION: It is possible to extract, read, and combine data from the EHR to view the patient journey. The agreement between NLP and the gold standard was high, which supports validity.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it