Hypertension identification using inpatient clinical notes from electronic medical records: an explainable, data-driven algorithm study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Case identification is important for health services research, measuring health system performance and risk adjustment, but existing methods based on manual chart review or diagnosis codes can be expensive, time consuming or of limited validity. We aimed to develop a hypertension case definition in electronic medical records (EMRs) for inpatient clinical notes using machine learning. Methods: A cohort of patients 18 years of age or older who were discharged from 1 of 3 Calgary acute care facilities (1 academic hospital and 2 community hospitals) between Jan. 1 and June 30, 2015, were randomly selected, and we compared the performance of EMR phenotype algorithms developed using machine learning with an algorithm based on the Canadian version of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD), in identifying patients with hypertension. Hypertension status was determined by chart review, the machine-learning algorithms used EMR notes and the ICD algorithm used the Discharge Abstract Database (Canadian Institute for Health Information). Results: Of our study sample (n = 3040), 1475 (48.5%) patients had hypertension. The group with hypertension was older (median age of 71.0 yr v. 52.5 yr for those patients without hypertension) and had fewer females (710 [48.2%] v. 764 [52.3%]). Our final EMR-based models had higher sensitivity than the ICD algorithm (> 90% v. 47%), while maintaining high positive predictive values (> 90% v. 97%). Interpretation: We found that hypertension tends to have clear documentation in EMRs and is well classified by concept search on free text. Machine learning can provide insights into how and where conditions are documented in EMRs and suggest nonmachine-learning phenotypes to implement.
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 | 0.014 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".