Patient Representation Learning From Heterogeneous Data Sources and Knowledge Graphs Using Deep Collective Matrix Factorization: Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient representation learning aims to learn features, also called representations, from input sources automatically, often in an unsupervised manner, for use in predictive models. This obviates the need for cumbersome, time- and resource-intensive manual feature engineering, especially from unstructured data such as text, images, or graphs. Most previous techniques have used neural network-based autoencoders to learn patient representations, primarily from clinical notes in electronic medical records (EMRs). Knowledge graphs (KGs), with clinical entities as nodes and their relations as edges, can be extracted automatically from biomedical literature and provide complementary information to EMR data that have been found to provide valuable predictive signals. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of collective matrix factorization (CMF), both the classical variant and a recent neural architecture called deep CMF (DCMF), in integrating heterogeneous data sources from EMR and KG to obtain patient representations for clinical decision support tasks. METHODS: Using a recent formulation for obtaining graph representations through matrix factorization within the context of CMF, we infused auxiliary information during patient representation learning. We also extended the DCMF architecture to create a task-specific end-to-end model that learns to simultaneously find effective patient representations and predictions. We compared the efficacy of such a model to that of first learning unsupervised representations and then independently learning a predictive model. We evaluated patient representation learning using CMF-based methods and autoencoders for 2 clinical decision support tasks on a large EMR data set. RESULTS: Our experiments show that DCMF provides a seamless way for integrating multiple sources of data to obtain patient representations, both in unsupervised and supervised settings. Its performance in single-source settings is comparable with that of previous autoencoder-based representation learning methods. When DCMF is used to obtain representations from a combination of EMR and KG, where most previous autoencoder-based methods cannot be used directly, its performance is superior to that of previous nonneural methods for CMF. Infusing information from KGs into patient representations using DCMF was found to improve downstream predictive performance. CONCLUSIONS: Our experiments indicate that DCMF is a versatile model that can be used to obtain representations from single and multiple data sources and combine information from EMR data and KGs. Furthermore, DCMF can be used to learn representations in both supervised and unsupervised settings. Thus, DCMF offers an effective way of integrating heterogeneous data sources and infusing auxiliary knowledge into patient representations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".