Machine learning approaches for electronic health records phenotyping: a methodical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Accurate and rapid phenotyping is a prerequisite to leveraging electronic health records for biomedical research. While early phenotyping relied on rule-based algorithms curated by experts, machine learning (ML) approaches have emerged as an alternative to improve scalability across phenotypes and healthcare settings. This study evaluates ML-based phenotyping with respect to (1) the data sources used, (2) the phenotypes considered, (3) the methods applied, and (4) the reporting and evaluation methods used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Web of Science for articles published between 2018 and 2022. After screening 850 articles, we recorded 37 variables on 100 studies. RESULTS: Most studies utilized data from a single institution and included information in clinical notes. Although chronic conditions were most commonly considered, ML also enabled the characterization of nuanced phenotypes such as social determinants of health. Supervised deep learning was the most popular ML paradigm, while semi-supervised and weakly supervised learning were applied to expedite algorithm development and unsupervised learning to facilitate phenotype discovery. ML approaches did not uniformly outperform rule-based algorithms, but deep learning offered a marginal improvement over traditional ML for many conditions. DISCUSSION: Despite the progress in ML-based phenotyping, most articles focused on binary phenotypes and few articles evaluated external validity or used multi-institution data. Study settings were infrequently reported and analytic code was rarely released. CONCLUSION: Continued research in ML-based phenotyping is warranted, with emphasis on characterizing nuanced phenotypes, establishing reporting and evaluation standards, and developing methods to accommodate misclassified phenotypes due to algorithm errors in downstream applications.
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 | 0.034 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".