Patient Representation From Structured Electronic Medical Records Based on Embedding Technique: Development and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The secondary use of structured electronic medical record (sEMR) data has become a challenge due to the diversity, sparsity, and high dimensionality of the data representation. Constructing an effective representation for sEMR data is becoming more and more crucial for subsequent data applications. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to apply the embedding technique used in the natural language processing domain for the sEMR data representation and to explore the feasibility and superiority of the embedding-based feature and patient representations in clinical application. METHODS: The entire training corpus consisted of records of 104,752 hospitalized patients with 13,757 medical concepts of disease diagnoses, physical examinations and procedures, laboratory tests, medications, etc. Each medical concept was embedded into a 200-dimensional real number vector using the Skip-gram algorithm with some adaptive changes from shuffling the medical concepts in a record 20 times. The average of vectors for all medical concepts in a patient record represented the patient. For embedding-based feature representation evaluation, we used the cosine similarities among the medical concept vectors to capture the latent clinical associations among the medical concepts. We further conducted a clustering analysis on stroke patients to evaluate and compare the embedding-based patient representations. The Hopkins statistic, Silhouette index (SI), and Davies-Bouldin index were used for the unsupervised evaluation, and the precision, recall, and F1 score were used for the supervised evaluation. RESULTS: The dimension of patient representation was reduced from 13,757 to 200 using the embedding-based representation. The average cosine similarity of the selected disease (subarachnoid hemorrhage) and its 15 clinically relevant medical concepts was 0.973. Stroke patients were clustered into two clusters with the highest SI (0.852). Clustering analyses conducted on patients with the embedding representations showed higher applicability (Hopkins statistic 0.931), higher aggregation (SI 0.862), and lower dispersion (Davies-Bouldin index 0.551) than those conducted on patients with reference representation methods. The clustering solutions for patients with the embedding-based representation achieved the highest F1 scores of 0.944 and 0.717 for two clusters. CONCLUSIONS: The feature-level embedding-based representations can reflect the potential clinical associations among medical concepts effectively. The patient-level embedding-based representation is easy to use as continuous input to standard machine learning algorithms and can bring performance improvements. It is expected that the embedding-based representation will be helpful in a wide range of secondary uses of sEMR data.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".