MixEHR-Guided: A guided multi-modal topic modeling approach for large-scale automatic phenotyping using the electronic health record
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic Health Records (EHRs) contain rich clinical data collected at the point of the care, and their increasing adoption offers exciting opportunities for clinical informatics, disease risk prediction, and personalized treatment recommendation. However, effective use of EHR data for research and clinical decision support is often hampered by a lack of reliable disease labels. To compile gold-standard labels, researchers often rely on clinical experts to develop rule-based phenotyping algorithms from billing codes and other surrogate features. This process is tedious and error-prone due to recall and observer biases in how codes and measures are selected, and some phenotypes are incompletely captured by a handful of surrogate features. To address this challenge, we present a novel automatic phenotyping model called MixEHR-Guided (MixEHR-G), a multimodal hierarchical Bayesian topic model that efficiently models the EHR generative process by identifying latent phenotype structure in the data. Unlike existing topic modeling algorithms wherein the inferred topics are not identifiable, MixEHR-G uses prior information from informative surrogate features to align topics with known phenotypes. We applied MixEHR-G to an openly-available EHR dataset of 38,597 intensive care patients (MIMIC-III) in Boston, USA and to administrative claims data for a population-based cohort (PopHR) of 1.3 million people in Quebec, Canada. Qualitatively, we demonstrate that MixEHR-G learns interpretable phenotypes and yields meaningful insights about phenotype similarities, comorbidities, and epidemiological associations. Quantitatively, MixEHR-G outperforms existing unsupervised phenotyping methods on a phenotype label annotation task, and it can accurately estimate relative phenotype prevalence functions without gold-standard phenotype information. Altogether, MixEHR-G is an important step towards building an interpretable and automated phenotyping system using EHR data.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".