MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311503790 · doi:10.2196/41312

Pan-Canadian Electronic Medical Record Diagnostic and Unstructured Text Data for Capturing PTSD: Retrospective Observational Study

2022· article· en· W4311503790 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Leanne Kosowan, Alexander Singer, Farhana Zulkernine, Hasan Zafari, Marcello Nesca, Dhasni Muthumuni

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthQueen's UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsText messagingElectronic medical recordMedical recordRetrospective cohort studyDiagnostic accuracyMedicineObservational studyPredictive valueFamily medicineComputer scienceRadiologyInternal medicineInternet privacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The availability of electronic medical record (EMR) free-text data for research varies. However, access to short diagnostic text fields is more widely available. OBJECTIVE: This study assesses agreement between free-text and short diagnostic text data from primary care EMR for identification of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study used EMR data from a pan-Canadian repository representing 1574 primary care providers at 265 clinics using 11 EMR vendors. Medical record review using free text and short diagnostic text fields of the EMR produced reference standards for PTSD. Agreement was assessed with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy. RESULTS: Our reference set contained 327 patients with free text and short diagnostic text. Among these patients, agreement between free text and short diagnostic text had an accuracy of 93.6% (CI 90.4%-96.0%). In a single Canadian province, case definitions 1 and 4 had a sensitivity of 82.6% (CI 74.4%-89.0%) and specificity of 99.5% (CI 97.4%-100%). However, when the reference set was expanded to a pan-Canada reference (n=12,104 patients), case definition 4 had the strongest agreement (sensitivity: 91.1%, CI 90.1%-91.9%; specificity: 99.1%, CI 98.9%-99.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of free-text encounter notes during medical record review did not lead to improved capture of PTSD cases, nor did it lead to significant changes in case definition agreement. Within this pan-Canadian database, jurisdictional differences in diagnostic codes and EMR structure suggested the need to supplement diagnostic codes with natural language processing to capture PTSD. When unavailable, short diagnostic text can supplement free-text data for reference set creation and case validation. Application of the PTSD case definition can inform PTSD prevalence and characteristics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207