MURAL: An Unsupervised Random Forest-Based Embedding for Electronic Health Record Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major challenge in embedding or visualizing clinical patient data is the heterogeneity of variable types including continuous lab values, categorical diagnostic codes, as well as missing or incomplete data. In particular, in EHR data, some variables are missing not at random (MNAR) but deliberately not collected and thus are a source of information. For example, lab tests may be deemed necessary for some patients on the basis of suspected diagnosis, but not for others. Here we present the MURAL forest – an unsupervised random forest for representing data with disparate variable types (e.g., categorical, continuous, MNAR). MURAL forests consist of a set of decision trees where node-splitting variables are chosen at random, such that the marginal entropy of all other variables is minimized by the split. This allows us to also split on MNAR variables and discrete variables in a way that is consistent with the continuous variables. The end goal is to learn the MURAL embedding of patients using average tree distances between those patients. These distances can be fed to nonlinear dimensionality reduction method like PHATE to derive visualizable embeddings. While such methods are ubiquitous in continuous-valued datasets (like single cell RNA-sequencing) they have not been used extensively in mixed variable data. We showcase the use of our method on one artificial and two clinical datasets. We show that using our approach, we can visualize and classify data more accurately than competing approaches. Finally, we show that MURAL can also be used to compare cohorts of patients via the recently proposed tree-sliced Wasserstein distances.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".