MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390745503 · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00970-0

Large language models to identify social determinants of health in electronic health records

2024· article· en· W4390745503 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Digital Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineEuropean CommissionViewRayNRG OncologyRadiological Society of North AmericaNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthConquer Cancer FoundationU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsSocial determinants of healthHealth careMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social determinants of health (SDoH) play a critical role in patient outcomes, yet their documentation is often missing or incomplete in the structured data of electronic health records (EHRs). Large language models (LLMs) could enable high-throughput extraction of SDoH from the EHR to support research and clinical care. However, class imbalance and data limitations present challenges for this sparsely documented yet critical information. Here, we investigated the optimal methods for using LLMs to extract six SDoH categories from narrative text in the EHR: employment, housing, transportation, parental status, relationship, and social support. The best-performing models were fine-tuned Flan-T5 XL for any SDoH mentions (macro-F1 0.71), and Flan-T5 XXL for adverse SDoH mentions (macro-F1 0.70). Adding LLM-generated synthetic data to training varied across models and architecture, but improved the performance of smaller Flan-T5 models (delta F1 + 0.12 to +0.23). Our best-fine-tuned models outperformed zero- and few-shot performance of ChatGPT-family models in the zero- and few-shot setting, except GPT4 with 10-shot prompting for adverse SDoH. Fine-tuned models were less likely than ChatGPT to change their prediction when race/ethnicity and gender descriptors were added to the text, suggesting less algorithmic bias (p < 0.05). Our models identified 93.8% of patients with adverse SDoH, while ICD-10 codes captured 2.0%. These results demonstrate the potential of LLMs in improving real-world evidence on SDoH and assisting in identifying patients who could benefit from resource support.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.367 · 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