A Novel Patient Similarity Network (PSN) Framework Based on Multi-Model Deep Learning for Precision Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precision medicine can be defined as the comparison of a new patient with existing patients that have similar characteristics and can be referred to as patient similarity. Several deep learning models have been used to build and apply patient similarity networks (PSNs). However, the challenges related to data heterogeneity and dimensionality make it difficult to use a single model to reduce data dimensionality and capture the features of diverse data types. In this paper, we propose a multi-model PSN that considers heterogeneous static and dynamic data. The combination of deep learning models and PSN allows ample clinical evidence and information extraction against which similar patients can be compared. We use the bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) to analyze the contextual data and generate word embedding, where semantic features are captured using a convolutional neural network (CNN). Dynamic data are analyzed using a long-short-term-memory (LSTM)-based autoencoder, which reduces data dimensionality and preserves the temporal features of the data. We propose a data fusion approach combining temporal and clinical narrative data to estimate patient similarity. The experiments we conducted proved that our model provides a higher classification accuracy in determining various patient health outcomes when compared with other traditional classification 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".