Inferring Actual Treatment Pathways from Patient Records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment pathways are step-by-step plans outlining the recommended medical care for specific diseases; they get revised when different treatments are found to improve patient outcomes. Examining health records is an important part of this revision process, but inferring patients' actual treatments from health data is challenging due to complex event-coding schemes and the absence of pathway-related annotations. This study aims to infer the actual treatment steps for a particular patient group from administrative health records (AHR) - a common form of tabular healthcare data - and address several technique- and methodology-based gaps in treatment pathway-inference research. We introduce Defrag, a method for examining AHRs to infer the real-world treatment steps for a particular patient group. Defrag learns the semantic and temporal meaning of healthcare event sequences, allowing it to reliably infer treatment steps from complex healthcare data. To our knowledge, Defrag is the first pathway-inference method to utilise a neural network (NN), an approach made possible by a novel, self-supervised learning objective. We also developed a testing and validation framework for pathway inference, which we use to characterise and evaluate Defrag's pathway inference ability and compare against baselines. We demonstrate Defrag's effectiveness by identifying best-practice pathway fragments for breast cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma in public healthcare records. Additionally, we use synthetic data experiments to demonstrate the characteristics of the Defrag method, and to compare Defrag to several baselines where it significantly outperforms non-NN-based methods. Defrag significantly outperforms several existing pathway-inference methods and offers an innovative and effective approach for inferring treatment pathways from AHRs. Open-source code is provided to encourage further research in this area.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".