MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389300832 · doi:10.2196/52200

Patient Phenotyping for Atopic Dermatitis With Transformers and Machine Learning: Algorithm Development and Validation Study

2023· article· en· W4389300832 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew Wang, Rachel Fulton, Sy Hwang, David J. Margolis, Danielle L. Mowery

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsAtopic dermatitisMachine learningMedicineArtificial intelligenceRecallBoosting (machine learning)Electronic health recordPrecision medicineClassifier (UML)Computer scienceHealth carePsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic skin condition that millions of people around the world live with each day. Performing research into identifying the causes and treatment for this disease has great potential to provide benefits for these individuals. However, AD clinical trial recruitment is not a trivial task due to the variance in diagnostic precision and phenotypic definitions leveraged by different clinicians, as well as the time spent finding, recruiting, and enrolling patients by clinicians to become study participants. Thus, there is a need for automatic and effective patient phenotyping for cohort recruitment. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to present an approach for identifying patients whose electronic health records suggest that they may have AD. METHODS: We created a vectorized representation of each patient and trained various supervised machine learning methods to classify when a patient has AD. Each patient is represented by a vector of either probabilities or binary values, where each value indicates whether they meet a different criteria for AD diagnosis. RESULTS: The most accurate AD classifier performed with a class-balanced accuracy of 0.8036, a precision of 0.8400, and a recall of 0.7500 when using XGBoost (Extreme Gradient Boosting). CONCLUSIONS: Creating an automated approach for identifying patient cohorts has the potential to accelerate, standardize, and automate the process of patient recruitment for AD studies; therefore, reducing clinician burden and informing the discovery of better treatment options for AD.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDermatology and Skin Diseases→French-language works237,207→