Information Extraction Framework for Disability Determination Using a Mental Functioning Use-Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural language processing (NLP) in health care enables transformation of complex narrative information into high value products such as clinical decision support and adverse event monitoring in real time via the electronic health record (EHR). However, information technologies for mental health have consistently lagged because of the complexity of measuring and modeling mental health and illness. The use of NLP to support management of mental health conditions is a viable topic that has not been explored in depth. This paper provides a framework for the advanced application of NLP methods to identify, extract, and organize information on mental health and functioning to inform the decision-making process applied to assessing mental health. We present a use-case related to work disability, guided by the disability determination process of the US Social Security Administration (SSA). From this perspective, the following questions must be addressed about each problem that leads to a disability benefits claim: When did the problem occur and how long has it existed? How severe is it? Does it affect the person's ability to work? and What is the source of the evidence about the problem? Our framework includes 4 dimensions of medical information that are central to assessing disability-temporal sequence and duration, severity, context, and information source. We describe key aspects of each dimension and promising approaches for application in mental functioning. For example, to address temporality, a complete functional timeline must be created with all relevant aspects of functioning such as intermittence, persistence, and recurrence. Severity of mental health symptoms can be successfully identified and extracted on a 4-level ordinal scale from absent to severe. Some NLP work has been reported on the extraction of context for specific cases of wheelchair use in clinical settings. We discuss the links between the task of information source assessment and work on source attribution, coreference resolution, event extraction, and rule-based methods. Gaps were identified in NLP applications that directly applied to the framework and in existing relevant annotated data sets. We highlighted NLP methods with the potential for advanced application in the field of mental functioning. Findings of this work will inform the development of instruments for supporting SSA adjudicators in their disability determination process. The 4 dimensions of medical information may have relevance for a broad array of individuals and organizations responsible for assessing mental health function and ability. Further, our framework with 4 specific dimensions presents significant opportunity for the application of NLP in the realm of mental health and functioning beyond the SSA setting, and it may support the development of robust tools and methods for decision-making related to clinical care, program implementation, and other outcomes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".