Developing a Framework to Infer Opioid Use Disorder Severity From Clinical Notes to Inform Natural Language Processing Methods: Characterization Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information regarding opioid use disorder (OUD) status and severity is important for patient care. Clinical notes provide valuable information for detecting and characterizing problematic opioid use, necessitating development of natural language processing (NLP) tools, which in turn requires reliably labeled OUD-relevant text and understanding of documentation patterns. OBJECTIVE: To inform automated NLP methods, we aimed to develop and evaluate an annotation schema for characterizing OUD and its severity, and to document patterns of OUD-relevant information within clinical notes of heterogeneous patient cohorts. METHODS: We developed an annotation schema to characterize OUD severity based on criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition. In total, 2 annotators reviewed clinical notes from key encounters of 100 adult patients with varied evidence of OUD, including patients with and those without chronic pain, with and without medication treatment for OUD, and a control group. We completed annotations at the sentence level. We calculated severity scores based on annotation of note text with 18 classes aligned with criteria for OUD severity and determined positive predictive values for OUD severity. RESULTS: The annotation schema contained 27 classes. We annotated 1436 sentences from 82 patients; notes of 18 patients (11 of whom were controls) contained no relevant information. Interannotator agreement was above 70% for 11 of 15 batches of reviewed notes. Severity scores for control group patients were all 0. Among noncontrol patients, the mean severity score was 5.1 (SD 3.2), indicating moderate OUD, and the positive predictive value for detecting moderate or severe OUD was 0.71. Progress notes and notes from emergency department and outpatient settings contained the most and greatest diversity of information. Substance misuse and psychiatric classes were most prevalent and highly correlated across note types with high co-occurrence across patients. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the annotation schema demonstrated strong potential for inferring OUD severity based on key information in a small set of clinical notes and highlighting where such information is documented. These advancements will facilitate NLP tool development to improve OUD prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".