A Review of Automatic Phenotyping Approaches using Electronic Health Records
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
Electronic Health Records (EHR) are a rich repository of valuable clinical information that exist in primary and secondary care databases. In order to utilize EHRs for medical observational research a range of algorithms for automatically identifying individuals with a specific phenotype have been developed. This review summarizes and offers a critical evaluation of the literature relating to studies conducted into the development of EHR phenotyping systems. This review describes phenotyping systems and techniques based on structured and unstructured EHR data. Articles published on PubMed and Google scholar between 2013 and 2017 have been reviewed, using search terms derived from Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). The popularity of using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques in extracting features from narrative text has increased. This increased attention is due to the availability of open source NLP algorithms, combined with accuracy improvement. In this review, Concept extraction is the most popular NLP technique since it has been used by more than 50% of the reviewed papers to extract features from EHR. High-throughput phenotyping systems using unsupervised machine learning techniques have gained more popularity due to their ability to efficiently and automatically extract a phenotype with minimal human effort.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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