A Phenotyping Algorithm to Identify People With HIV in Electronic Health Record Data (HIV-Phen): Development and Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identification of people with HIV from electronic health record (EHR) data is an essential first step in the study of important HIV outcomes, such as risk assessment. This task has been historically performed via manual chart review, but the increased availability of large clinical data sets has led to the emergence of phenotyping algorithms to automate this process. Existing algorithms for identifying people with HIV rely on a combination of International Classification of Disease codes and laboratory tests or closely mimic clinical testing guidelines for HIV diagnosis. However, we found that existing algorithms in the literature missed a significant proportion of people with HIV in our data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop and evaluate HIV-Phen, an updated criteria-based HIV phenotyping algorithm. METHODS: We developed an algorithm using HIV-specific laboratory tests and medications and compared it with previously published algorithms in national and local data sets to identify cohorts of people with HIV. Cohort demographics were compared with those reported in the national and local surveillance data. Chart reviews were performed on a subsample of patients from the local database to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the algorithm. RESULTS: Our new algorithm identified substantially more people with HIV in both national (up to an 85.75% increase) and local (up to an 83.20% increase) EHR databases than the previously published algorithms. The demographic characteristics of people with HIV identified using our algorithm were similar to those reported in national and local HIV surveillance data. Our algorithm demonstrated improved sensitivity over existing algorithms (98% vs 56%-92%) while maintaining a similar overall accuracy (96% vs 80%-96%). CONCLUSIONS: We developed and evaluated an updated criteria-based phenotyping algorithm for identifying people with HIV in EHR data that demonstrates improved sensitivity over existing algorithms.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".