Utilização de mineração de textos na previsão de internações hospitalares com base em registros médicos da emergência hospitalar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we use text mining methods to process data from early emergency department ED patient records using the SOAP framework, and predict future hospitalizations and discharges.Sets-of-words are obtained via binary representation, term frequency, and term frequency-inverse document frequency.Unigrams, bigrams and trigrams are tested for feature formation.Feature selection is based on and F-score metrics.In the prediction module, eight text mining methods are tested: Decision Tree, Random Forest, Extremely Randomized Tree, AdaBoost, Logistic Regression, Multinomial Naïve Bayes, Support Vector Machine (Kernel linear) and Nu-Support Vector Machine (Kernel linear).Prediction performance is evaluated by F1-scores.Precision and Recall values are also informed for all text mining methods tested.Nu-Support Vector Machine was the text mining method with the best overall performance.Its average F1-score in predicting hospitalization was 77.70%, with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.66%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".