MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135857378 · doi:10.2196/24020

Extracting Family History Information From Electronic Health Records: Natural Language Processing Analysis

2021· article· en· W3135857378 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsNatural historyHealth recordsText messagingFamily historyComputer scienceNatural language processingMedicineData scienceWorld Wide WebHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment of many genetic disorders and familial diseases significantly improve if the family history (FH) of a patient is known. Such information is often written in the free text of clinical notes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop automated methods that enable access to FH data through natural language processing. METHODS: We performed information extraction by using transformers to extract disease mentions from notes. We also experimented with rule-based methods for extracting family member (FM) information from text and coreference resolution techniques. We evaluated different transfer learning strategies to improve the annotation of diseases. We provided a thorough error analysis of the contributing factors that affect such information extraction systems. RESULTS: Our experiments showed that the combination of domain-adaptive pretraining and intermediate-task pretraining achieved an F1 score of 81.63% for the extraction of diseases and FMs from notes when it was tested on a public shared task data set from the National Natural Language Processing Clinical Challenges (N2C2), providing a statistically significant improvement over the baseline (P<.001). In comparison, in the 2019 N2C2/Open Health Natural Language Processing Shared Task, the median F1 score of all 17 participating teams was 76.59%. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach, which leverages a state-of-the-art named entity recognition model for disease mention detection coupled with a hybrid method for FM mention detection, achieved an effectiveness that was close to that of the top 3 systems participating in the 2019 N2C2 FH extraction challenge, with only the top system convincingly outperforming our approach in terms of precision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.288
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