Ontology-based feature engineering in machine learning workflows for heterogeneous epilepsy patient records
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
Biomedical ontologies are widely used to harmonize heterogeneous data and integrate large volumes of clinical data from multiple sources. This study analyzed the utility of ontologies beyond their traditional roles, that is, in addressing a challenging and currently underserved field of feature engineering in machine learning workflows. Machine learning workflows are being increasingly used to analyze medical records with heterogeneous phenotypic, genotypic, and related medical terms to improve patient care. We performed a retrospective study using neuropathology reports from the German Neuropathology Reference Center for Epilepsy Surgery at Erlangen, Germany. This cohort included 312 patients who underwent epilepsy surgery and were labeled with one or more diagnoses, including dual pathology, hippocampal sclerosis, malformation of cortical dysplasia, tumor, encephalitis, and gliosis. We modeled the diagnosis terms together with their microscopy, immunohistochemistry, anatomy, etiologies, and imaging findings using the description logic-based Web Ontology Language (OWL) in the Epilepsy and Seizure Ontology (EpSO). Three tree-based machine learning models were used to classify the neuropathology reports into one or more diagnosis classes with and without ontology-based feature engineering. We used five-fold cross validation to avoid overfitting with a fixed number of repetitions while leaving out one subset of data for testing, and we used recall, balanced accuracy, and hamming loss as performance metrics for the multi-label classification task. The epilepsy ontology-based feature engineering approach improved the performance of all the three learning models with an improvement of 35.7%, 54.5%, and 33.3% in logistics regression, random forest, and gradient tree boosting models respectively. The run time performance of all three models improved significantly with ontology-based feature engineering with gradient tree boosting model showing a 93.8% reduction in the time required for training and testing of the model. Although, all three models showed an overall improved performance across the three-performance metrics using ontology-based feature engineering, the rate of improvement was not consistent across all input features. To analyze this variation in performance, we computed feature importance scores and found that microscopy had the highest importance score across the three models, followed by imaging, immunohistochemistry, and anatomy in a decreasing order of importance scores. This study showed that ontologies have an important role in feature engineering to make heterogeneous clinical data accessible to machine learning models and also improve the performance of machine learning models in multilabel multiclass classification tasks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it