Clinical Annotation Research Kit (CLARK): Computable Phenotyping Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computable phenotypes are algorithms that translate clinical features into code that can be run against electronic health record (EHR) data to define patient cohorts. However, computable phenotypes that only make use of structured EHR data do not capture the full richness of a patient's medical record. While natural language processing (NLP) methods have shown success in extracting clinical features from text, the use of such tools has generally been limited to research groups with substantial NLP expertise. Our goal was to develop an open-source phenotyping software, Clinical Annotation Research Kit (CLARK), that would enable clinical and translational researchers to use machine learning-based NLP for computable phenotyping without requiring deep informatics expertise. CLARK enables nonexpert users to mine text using machine learning classifiers by specifying features for the software to match in clinical notes. Once the features are defined, the user-friendly CLARK interface allows the user to choose from a variety of standard machine learning algorithms (linear support vector machine, Gaussian Naïve Bayes, decision tree, and random forest), cross-validation methods, and the number of folds (cross-validation splits) to be used in evaluation of the classifier. Example phenotypes where CLARK has been applied include pediatric diabetes (sensitivity=0.91; specificity=0.98), symptomatic uterine fibroids (positive predictive value=0.81; negative predictive value=0.54), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (sensitivity=0.90; specificity=0.94), and primary ciliary dyskinesia (sensitivity=0.88; specificity=1.0). In each of these use cases, CLARK allowed investigators to incorporate variables into their phenotype algorithm that would not be available as structured data. Moreover, the fact that nonexpert users can get started with machine learning-based NLP with limited informatics involvement is a significant improvement over the status quo. We hope to disseminate CLARK to other organizations that may not have NLP or machine learning specialists available, enabling wider use of these methods.
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 | 0.007 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.045 |
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".