Prediction of Medical Concepts in Electronic Health Records: Similar Patient Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medicine 2.0-the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies such as social networks in health care-creates the need for apps that can find other patients with similar experiences and health conditions based on a patient's electronic health record (EHR). Concurrently, there is an increasing number of longitudinal EHR data sets with rich information, which are essential to fulfill this need. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the hypothesis that we can leverage similar EHRs to predict possible future medical concepts (eg, disorders) from a patient's EHR. METHODS: We represented patients' EHRs using time-based prefixes and suffixes, where each prefix or suffix is a set of medical concepts from a medical ontology. We compared the prefixes of other patients in the collection with the state of the current patient using various interpatient distance measures. The set of similar prefixes yields a set of suffixes, which we used to determine probable future concepts for the current patient's EHR. RESULTS: We evaluated our methods on the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II data set of patients, where we achieved precision up to 56.1% and recall up to 69.5%. For a limited set of clinically interesting concepts, specifically a set of procedures, we found that 86.9% (353/406) of the true-positives are clinically useful, that is, these procedures were actually performed later on the patient, and only 4.7% (19/406) of true-positives were completely irrelevant. CONCLUSIONS: These initial results indicate that predicting patients' future medical concepts is feasible. Effectively predicting medical concepts can have several applications, such as managing resources in a hospital.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".