MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387002251 · doi:10.1007/s40120-023-00540-2

Rule-Based Identification of Individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment or Alzheimer’s Disease Using Clinical Notes from the United States Veterans Affairs Healthcare System

2023· article· en· W4387002251 on OpenAlexaff
Byron J. Aguilar, Donald R. Miller, Guneet K. Jasuja, Xuyang Li, Ekaterina Shishova, Maureen K. O’Connor, Andrew Nguyen, Peter J. Morin, Dan R. Berlowitz, Raymond Zhang, Amir Abbas Tahami Monfared, Quanwu Zhang, Weiming Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology and Therapy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEisai IncorporatedNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthEisai
KeywordsVeterans AffairsDiagnosis codeMedicineCognitive impairmentDiseaseGerontologyCohortPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early identification of individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a clinical and research imperative. Use of diagnostic codes for MCI and AD identification has limitations. We used clinical notes to supplement diagnostic codes in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (VAHS) electronic health records (EHR) to identify and establish cohorts of Veterans recorded with MCI or AD. METHODS: Targeted keyword searches for MCI ("Mild cognitive impairment;" "MCI") and AD ("Alz*") were used to extract clinical notes from the VAHS EHR from fiscal year (FY) 2010 through FY 2019. Iterative steps of inclusion and exclusion were applied until searches achieved a positive predictive value ≥ 80%. MCI and AD cohorts were identified via clinical notes and/or diagnostic codes (i.e., including Veterans recorded by "Notes Only," "Notes + Code," or "Codes Only"). RESULTS: A total of 2,134,661 clinical notes from 339,007 Veterans met the iterative search criteria for MCI due to any cause and 4,231,933 notes from 572,063 Veterans met the iterative search criteria for AD. Over the 10-year study period, the number of clinical notes recording AD was generally stable, whereas the number for MCI more than doubled. More Veterans were identified for the MCI or AD cohorts via clinical notes than by diagnostic codes, particularly in the AD cohort. Among Veterans identified by having "Notes + Code" for MCI, the number first recorded by a code was lower than the number first recorded by a note until FY 2015 and then gradually became comparable after FY 2015. Among Veterans identified by having "Notes + Code" for AD, the number first recorded by a note was more than double the number first recorded by a code AD in each of the FYs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical note-based identification captured more Veterans recorded with MCI and AD than diagnostic code-based identification.

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)0.052
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.372
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.117 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology and TherapySame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207