Standard Vocabularies to Improve Machine Learning Model Transferability With Electronic Health Record Data: Retrospective Cohort Study Using Health Care–Associated Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background With the widespread adoption of electronic healthcare records (EHRs) by US hospitals, there is an opportunity to leverage this data for the development of predictive algorithms to improve clinical care. A key barrier in model development and implementation includes the external validation of model discrimination, which is rare and often results in worse performance. One reason why machine learning models are not externally generalizable is data heterogeneity. A potential solution to address the substantial data heterogeneity between health care systems is to use standard vocabularies to map EHR data elements. The advantage of these vocabularies is a hierarchical relationship between elements, which allows the aggregation of specific clinical features to more general grouped concepts. Objective This study aimed to evaluate grouping EHR data using standard vocabularies to improve the transferability of machine learning models for the detection of postoperative health care–associated infections across institutions with different EHR systems. Methods Patients who underwent surgery from the University of Utah Health and Intermountain Healthcare from July 2014 to August 2017 with complete follow-up data were included. The primary outcome was a health care–associated infection within 30 days of the procedure. EHR data from 0-30 days after the operation were mapped to standard vocabularies and grouped using the hierarchical relationships of the vocabularies. Model performance was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and F1-score in internal and external validations. To evaluate model transferability, a difference-in-difference metric was defined as the difference in performance drop between internal and external validations for the baseline and grouped models. Results A total of 5775 patients from the University of Utah and 15,434 patients from Intermountain Healthcare were included. The prevalence of selected outcomes was from 4.9% (761/15,434) to 5% (291/5775) for surgical site infections, from 0.8% (44/5775) to 1.1% (171/15,434) for pneumonia, from 2.6% (400/15,434) to 3% (175/5775) for sepsis, and from 0.8% (125/15,434) to 0.9% (50/5775) for urinary tract infections. In all outcomes, the grouping of data using standard vocabularies resulted in a reduced drop in AUC and F1-score in external validation compared to baseline features (all P<.001, except urinary tract infection AUC: P=.002). The difference-in-difference metrics ranged from 0.005 to 0.248 for AUC and from 0.075 to 0.216 for F1-score. Conclusions We demonstrated that grouping machine learning model features based on standard vocabularies improved model transferability between data sets across 2 institutions. Improving model transferability using standard vocabularies has the potential to improve the generalization of clinical prediction models across the health care system.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".