Optimizing Antihypertensive Medication Classification in Electronic Health Record-Based Data: Classification System Development and Methodological Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computable phenotypes have the ability to utilize data within the electronic health record (EHR) to identify patients with certain characteristics. Many computable phenotypes rely on multiple types of data within the EHR including prescription drug information. Hypertension (HTN)-related computable phenotypes are particularly dependent on the correct classification of antihypertensive prescription drug information, as well as corresponding diagnoses and blood pressure information. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to create an antihypertensive drug classification system to be utilized with EHR-based data as part of HTN-related computable phenotypes. METHODS: We compared 4 different antihypertensive drug classification systems based off of 4 different methodologies and terminologies, including 3 RxNorm Concept Unique Identifier (RxCUI)-based classifications and 1 medication name-based classification. The RxCUI-based classifications utilized data from (1) the Drug Ontology, (2) the new Medication Reference Terminology, and (3) the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System and DrugBank, whereas the medication name-based classification relied on antihypertensive drug names. Each classification system was applied to EHR-based prescription drug data from hypertensive patients in the OneFlorida Data Trust. RESULTS: There were 13,627 unique RxCUIs and 8025 unique medication names from the 13,879,046 prescriptions. We observed a broad overlap between the 4 methods, with 84.1% (691/822) to 95.3% (695/729) of terms overlapping pairwise between the different classification methods. Key differences arose from drug products with multiple dosage forms, drug products with an indication of benign prostatic hyperplasia, drug products that contain more than 1 ingredient (combination products), and terms within the classification systems corresponding to retired or obsolete RxCUIs. CONCLUSIONS: In total, 2 antihypertensive drug classifications were constructed, one based on RxCUIs and one based on medication name, that can be used in future computable phenotypes that require antihypertensive drug classifications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.257 | 0.379 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".