Automatic International Classification of Diseases Coding System: Deep Contextualized Language Model With Rule-Based Approaches
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The tenth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) is widely used for epidemiological research and health management. The clinical modification (CM) and procedure coding system (PCS) of ICD-10 were developed to describe more clinical details with increasing diagnosis and procedure codes and applied in disease-related groups for reimbursement. The expansion of codes made the coding time-consuming and less accurate. The state-of-the-art model using deep contextual word embeddings was used for automatic multilabel text classification of ICD-10. In addition to input discharge diagnoses (DD), the performance can be improved by appropriate preprocessing methods for the text from other document types, such as medical history, comorbidity and complication, surgical method, and special examination. Objective This study aims to establish a contextual language model with rule-based preprocessing methods to develop the model for ICD-10 multilabel classification. Methods We retrieved electronic health records from a medical center. We first compared different word embedding methods. Second, we compared the preprocessing methods using the best-performing embeddings. We compared biomedical bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BioBERT), clinical generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding (Clinical XLNet), label tree-based attention-aware deep model for high-performance extreme multilabel text classification (AttentionXLM), and word-to-vector (Word2Vec) to predict ICD-10-CM. To compare different preprocessing methods for ICD-10-CM, we included DD, medical history, and comorbidity and complication as inputs. We compared the performance of ICD-10-CM prediction using different preprocesses, including definition training, external cause code removal, number conversion, and combination code filtering. For the ICD-10 PCS, the model was trained using different combinations of DD, surgical method, and key words of special examination. The micro F1 score and the micro area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were used to compare the model’s performance with that of different preprocessing methods. Results BioBERT had an F1 score of 0.701 and outperformed other models such as Clinical XLNet, AttentionXLM, and Word2Vec. For the ICD-10-CM, the model had an F1 score that significantly increased from 0.749 (95% CI 0.744-0.753) to 0.769 (95% CI 0.764-0.773) with the ICD-10 definition training, external cause code removal, number conversion, and combination code filter. For the ICD-10-PCS, the model had an F1 score that significantly increased from 0.670 (95% CI 0.663-0.678) to 0.726 (95% CI 0.719-0.732) with a combination of discharge diagnoses, surgical methods, and key words of special examination. With our preprocessing methods, the model had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.853 (95% CI 0.849-0.855) and 0.831 (95% CI 0.827-0.834) for ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS, respectively. Conclusions The performance of our model with the pretrained contextualized language model and rule-based preprocessing method is better than that of the state-of-the-art model for ICD-10-CM or ICD-10-PCS. This study highlights the importance of rule-based preprocessing methods based on coder coding rules.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it