MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387007762 · doi:10.1101/2023.09.24.23295960

Moving Biosurveillance Beyond Coded Data: AI for Symptom Detection from Physician Notes

2023· preprint· en· W4387007762 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew McMurry, Amy R. Zipursky, Alon Geva, Karen L. Olson, James Jones, Vladimir Ignatov, Timothy A. Miller, Kenneth D. Mandl

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCenters for Disease Control and PreventionU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsRecallEmergency departmentMedicineGold standard (test)Artificial intelligenceElectronic health recordHealth recordsPopulationRetrospective cohort studyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)CohortNatural language processingPediatricsComputer scienceHealth carePsychologyDiseasePsychiatryInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Real-time surveillance of emerging infectious diseases necessitates a dynamically evolving, computable case definition, which frequently incorporates symptom-related criteria. For symptom detection, both population health monitoring platforms and research initiatives primarily depend on structured data extracted from electronic health records. Objective To validate and test an artificial intelligence (AI) based Natural Language Processing (NLP) pipeline for detecting COVID-19 symptoms from physician notes. Methods Subjects in this retrospective cohort study are patients 21 years old and younger, who presented to a pediatric emergency department (ED) at a large academic children’s hospital between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2022. ED notes for all patients were processed with an NLP pipeline tuned to detect the mention of 11 COVID-19 symptoms based on CDC criteria. For a gold standard, 3 subject matter experts labeled 226 ED notes and had strong agreement (F1=98.6; PPV=97.2; Recall=100.0). F1, PPV, and recall were used to compare the performance of both NLP and ICD-10 to the gold standard chart review. As a formative use case, variations in symptom patterns were measured across SARS-Cov2 variant eras. Results There were 85,678 ED encounters during the study period, 4.0% with patients with COVID-19. NLP was more accurate at identifying encounters with patients that had any of the COVID-19 symptoms (F1=79.6) than ICD-10 codes (F1=45.1%). NLP accuracy was higher for positive symptoms (recall=93%) than ICD-10 (recall=30%). However, ICD-10 accuracy was higher for negative symptoms (specificity=99.4%) than NLP (specificity=91.7%). Congestion or runny nose showed the highest accuracy difference: NLP F1=82.8%, ICD-10 F1=4.2%. Prevalence of NLP symptoms among patients with COVID-19 differed across variant eras. And patients with COVID-19 were more likely to have each symptom than patients without this disease. Effect sizes (odds ratios) varied across pandemic eras. Conclusions This study establishes the value of AI based NLP as a highly effective tool for real-time COVID-19 symptom detection in pediatric patients, outperforming traditional ICD-10 methods. It also reveals the evolving nature of symptom prevalence across different virus variants, underscoring the need for dynamic, technology-driven approaches in infectious disease surveillance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AIFrench-language works237,207