MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3208426488 · doi:10.2196/29120

Stroke Outcome Measurements From Electronic Medical Records: Cross-sectional Study on the Effectiveness of Neural and Nonneural Classifiers

2021· article· en· W3208426488 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruna Stella Zanotto, Ana Paula Beck da Silva Etges, Avner Dal Bosco, Eduardo G. Cortes, Renata Ruschel, Ana Cláudia de Souza, Cláudio Moisés Valiense de Andrade, Felipe Viegas, Sérgio Canuto, Sheila Cristina Ouriques Martins, Renata Vieira, Carísi Anne Polanczyk, Marcos André Gonçalves

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceClinical decision support systemArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSupport vector machineMedical recordArtificial neural networkStroke (engine)Cross-validationProtocol (science)Set (abstract data type)MedicineData miningDecision support systemSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With the rapid adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs), there is an ever-increasing opportunity to collect data and extract knowledge from EMRs to support patient-centered stroke management. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of state-of-the-art automatic text classification methods in classifying data to support the prediction of clinical patient outcomes and the extraction of patient characteristics from EMRs. METHODS: Our study addressed the computational problems of information extraction and automatic text classification. We identified essential tasks to be considered in an ischemic stroke value-based program. The 30 selected tasks were classified (manually labeled by specialists) according to the following value agenda: tier 1 (achieved health care status), tier 2 (recovery process), care related (clinical management and risk scores), and baseline characteristics. The analyzed data set was retrospectively extracted from the EMRs of patients with stroke from a private Brazilian hospital between 2018 and 2019. A total of 44,206 sentences from free-text medical records in Portuguese were used to train and develop 10 supervised computational machine learning methods, including state-of-the-art neural and nonneural methods, along with ontological rules. As an experimental protocol, we used a 5-fold cross-validation procedure repeated 6 times, along with subject-wise sampling. A heatmap was used to display comparative result analyses according to the best algorithmic effectiveness (F1 score), supported by statistical significance tests. A feature importance analysis was conducted to provide insights into the results. RESULTS: The top-performing models were support vector machines trained with lexical and semantic textual features, showing the importance of dealing with noise in EMR textual representations. The support vector machine models produced statistically superior results in 71% (17/24) of tasks, with an F1 score >80% regarding care-related tasks (patient treatment location, fall risk, thrombolytic therapy, and pressure ulcer risk), the process of recovery (ability to feed orally or ambulate and communicate), health care status achieved (mortality), and baseline characteristics (diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and smoking status). Neural methods were largely outperformed by more traditional nonneural methods, given the characteristics of the data set. Ontological rules were also effective in tasks such as baseline characteristics (alcoholism, atrial fibrillation, and coronary artery disease) and the Rankin scale. The complementarity in effectiveness among models suggests that a combination of models could enhance the results and cover more tasks in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in information technology capacity are essential for scalability and agility in measuring health status outcomes. This study allowed us to measure effectiveness and identify opportunities for automating the classification of outcomes of specific tasks related to clinical conditions of stroke victims, and thus ultimately assess the possibility of proactively using these machine learning techniques in real-world situations.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical Informatics→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→