The Value of Extracting Clinician-Recorded Affect for Advancing Clinical Research on Depression: Proof-of-Concept Study Applying Natural Language Processing to Electronic Health Records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Affective characteristics are associated with depression severity, course, and prognosis. Patients' affect captured by clinicians during sessions may provide a rich source of information that more naturally aligns with the depression course and patient-desired depression outcomes. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we propose an information extraction vocabulary used to pilot the feasibility and reliability of identifying clinician-recorded patient affective states in clinical notes from electronic health records. METHODS: Affect and mood were annotated in 147 clinical notes of 109 patients by 2 independent coders across 3 pilots. Intercoder discrepancies were settled by a third coder. This reference annotation set was used to test a proof-of-concept natural language processing (NLP) system using a named entity recognition approach. RESULTS: Concepts were frequently addressed in templated format and free text in clinical notes. Annotated data demonstrated that affective characteristics were identified in 87.8% (129/147) of the notes, while mood was identified in 97.3% (143/147) of the notes. The intercoder reliability was consistently good across the pilots (interannotator agreement [IAA] >70%). The final NLP system showed good reliability with the final reference annotation set (mood IAA=85.8%; affect IAA=80.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Affect and mood can be reliably identified in clinician reports and are good targets for NLP. We discuss several next steps to expand on this proof of concept and the value of this research for depression clinical research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".