MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378418071 · doi:10.1200/cci.22.00196

Natural Language Processing Methods to Empirically Explore Social Contexts and Needs in Cancer Patient Notes

2023· article· en· W4378418071 on OpenAlexaff
Abigail Derton, Marco Guevara-Vega, Shan Chen, Shalini Moningi, David Kozono, Dianbo Liu, Timothy A. Miller, Guergana Savova, Raymond H. Mak, Danielle S. Bitterman

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Clinical Cancer Informatics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupOddsActuarial scienceDocumentationMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceLogistic regressionSociologyMachine learningEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Clinical Cancer InformaticsSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207