MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112082869 · doi:10.2196/18756

Measuring Adoption of Patient Priorities–Aligned Care Using Natural Language Processing of Electronic Health Records: Development and Validation of the Model

2020· article· en· W3112082869 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Javad Razjouyan, Jennifer Freytag, Lilian Dindo, Lea Kiefer, Edward Odom, Jaime Halaszynski, Jennifer W. Silva, Aanand D. Naik

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteOffice of Rural HealthCenter for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and SafetyU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsRecallArtificial intelligenceElectronic health recordNatural language processingHealth careMedicinePrecision and recallHealth information technologyHealth recordsComputer scienceMEDLINEChartMachine learningPsychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient Priorities Care (PPC) is a model of care that aligns health care recommendations with priorities of older adults who have multiple chronic conditions. Following identification of patient priorities, this information is documented in the patient's electronic health record (EHR). OBJECTIVE: Our goal is to develop and validate a natural language processing (NLP) model that reliably documents when clinicians identify patient priorities (ie, values, outcome goals, and care preferences) within the EHR as a measure of PPC adoption. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of unstructured National Veteran Health Administration EHR free-text notes using an NLP model. The data were sourced from 778 patient notes of 658 patients from encounters with 144 social workers in the primary care setting. Each patient's free-text clinical note was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers for the presence of PPC language such as priorities, values, and goals. We developed an NLP model that utilized statistical machine learning approaches. The performance of the NLP model in training and validation with 10-fold cross-validation is reported via accuracy, recall, and precision in comparison to the chart review. RESULTS: Of 778 notes, 589 (75.7%) were identified as containing PPC language (kappa=0.82, P<.001). The NLP model in the training stage had an accuracy of 0.98 (95% CI 0.98-0.99), a recall of 0.98 (95% CI 0.98-0.99), and precision of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-1.00). The NLP model in the validation stage had an accuracy of 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94), recall of 0.84 (95% CI 0.79-0.89), and precision of 0.84 (95% CI 0.77-0.91). In contrast, an approach using simple search terms for PPC only had a precision of 0.757. CONCLUSIONS: An automated NLP model can reliably measure with high precision, recall, and accuracy when clinicians document patient priorities as a key step in the adoption of PPC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207