MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323529087 · doi:10.2196/45246

Using Natural Language Processing to Predict Fatal Drug Overdose From Autopsy Narrative Text: Algorithm Development and Validation Study

2023· article· en· W4323529087 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leigh Anne Tang, Jessica Korona-Bailey, Dimitrios Zaras, Allison Roberts, Sutapa Mukhopadhyay, Stephen Espy, Colin G. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Institute of Mental HealthCenters for Disease Control and PreventionU.S. National Library of MedicineWellcome Trust
KeywordsLogistic regressionRandom forestArtificial intelligenceMedicineComputer scienceNatural language processingPoison controlMachine learningMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Fatal drug overdose surveillance informs prevention but is often delayed because of autopsy report processing and death certificate coding. Autopsy reports contain narrative text describing scene evidence and medical history (similar to preliminary death scene investigation reports) and may serve as early data sources for identifying fatal drug overdoses. To facilitate timely fatal overdose reporting, natural language processing was applied to narrative texts from autopsies. Objective This study aimed to develop a natural language processing–based model that predicts the likelihood that an autopsy report narrative describes an accidental or undetermined fatal drug overdose. Methods Autopsy reports of all manners of death (2019-2021) were obtained from the Tennessee Office of the State Chief Medical Examiner. The text was extracted from autopsy reports (PDFs) using optical character recognition. Three common narrative text sections were identified, concatenated, and preprocessed (bag-of-words) using term frequency–inverse document frequency scoring. Logistic regression, support vector machine (SVM), random forest, and gradient boosted tree classifiers were developed and validated. Models were trained and calibrated using autopsies from 2019 to 2020 and tested using those from 2021. Model discrimination was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic, precision, recall, F1-score, and F2-score (prioritizes recall over precision). Calibration was performed using logistic regression (Platt scaling) and evaluated using the Spiegelhalter z test. Shapley additive explanations values were generated for models compatible with this method. In a post hoc subgroup analysis of the random forest classifier, model discrimination was evaluated by forensic center, race, age, sex, and education level. Results A total of 17,342 autopsies (n=5934, 34.22% cases) were used for model development and validation. The training set included 10,215 autopsies (n=3342, 32.72% cases), the calibration set included 538 autopsies (n=183, 34.01% cases), and the test set included 6589 autopsies (n=2409, 36.56% cases). The vocabulary set contained 4002 terms. All models showed excellent performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic ≥0.95, precision ≥0.94, recall ≥0.92, F1-score ≥0.94, and F2-score ≥0.92). The SVM and random forest classifiers achieved the highest F2-scores (0.948 and 0.947, respectively). The logistic regression and random forest were calibrated (P=.95 and P=.85, respectively), whereas the SVM and gradient boosted tree classifiers were miscalibrated (P=.03 and P<.001, respectively). “Fentanyl” and “accident” had the highest Shapley additive explanations values. Post hoc subgroup analyses revealed lower F2-scores for autopsies from forensic centers D and E. Lower F2-score were observed for the American Indian, Asian, ≤14 years, and ≥65 years subgroups, but larger sample sizes are needed to validate these findings. Conclusions The random forest classifier may be suitable for identifying potential accidental and undetermined fatal overdose autopsies. Further validation studies should be conducted to ensure early detection of accidental and undetermined fatal drug overdoses across all subgroups.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207