Natural Language Processing Methods to Empirically Explore Social Contexts and Needs in Cancer Patient Notes
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
PURPOSE: There is an unmet need to empirically explore and understand drivers of cancer disparities, particularly social determinants of health. We explored natural language processing methods to automatically and empirically extract clinical documentation of social contexts and needs that may underlie disparities. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 230,325 clinical notes from 5,285 patients treated with radiotherapy from 2007 to 2019. We compared linguistic features among White versus non-White, low-income insurance versus other insurance, and male versus female patients' notes. Log odds ratios with an informative Dirichlet prior were calculated to compare words over-represented in each group. A variational autoencoder topic model was applied, and topic probability was compared between groups. The presence of machine-learnable bias was explored by developing statistical and neural demographic group classifiers. RESULTS: Terms associated with varied social contexts and needs were identified for all demographic group comparisons. For example, notes of non-White and low-income insurance patients were over-represented with terms associated with housing and transportation, whereas notes of White and other insurance patients were over-represented with terms related to physical activity. Topic models identified a social history topic, and topic probability varied significantly between the demographic group comparisons. Classification models performed poorly at classifying notes of non-White and low-income insurance patients (F1 of 0.30 and 0.23, respectively). CONCLUSION: Exploration of linguistic differences in clinical notes between patients of different race/ethnicity, insurance status, and sex identified social contexts and needs in patients with cancer and revealed high-level differences in notes. Future work is needed to validate whether these findings may play a role in cancer disparities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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