Text mining using clinical terms in electronic records of annual falls of patients in home community care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of health informatics in text in electronic health records (EHRs) has increased. In parallel, the text mining of health informatics in clinical notes has also increased in the attempt to utilize big data in EHRs for better patient care. However, little is known on how to utilize the word frequencies of text in clinical notes in EHRs to investigate patient care over a per annual basis.Our methods used a tool called NimbleMiner (NM) that utilized RStudio and generate a relatively “naïve” native lexicon of Simclins (i.e., SIMilar CLINical terms) via the applications with special emphasis on patient falls, which are important events that can lead to decreased health outcomes. The identified Simclins’ frequencies in the file were then determined using a basic Python script for 1-gram words (e.g., “home”) and using Voyant Tools for n+1-gram words (e.g., “living room” or “intensive care unit”).The most frequent words (over an annual basis) in the training corpus were determined to be: “mg” (15,726); “patient” (12,945); “tablet” (10,992); “po” or per os or by mouth (8,904); “blood” (8,824). The Simclins were identified for each domain of interest, the initial prompts for the first search iteration of NM, as well as ChatGPT3.5 output for comparison purposes. There were 15,252 Simclin word frequency related to home and 2,421 related to clinical settings over one year, respectively. Simclin frequencies per year by domain were “fall” (514), “setting” (17,673), computerized provider order entry – CPOE (3,408), and medications (62,317). Furthermore, the significantly larger text of 33,769 on medications (i.e., mg, tablet, medications, aspirin, coumadin, dose, doses, prescribed, and unit_ml_solution) of the total of 46,530 or 72.6% of the corpus.The use of NM and other tools proved that text mining of the clinical notes can provide operational information of important clinical events based on word Simclin frequencies in the clinical notes over an annual basis. The results showed importance of lower frequency words like “fall” as well as higher frequency terms such as “medications” and “prescriptions”. More investigation is needed in terms using Simclins across the health big data of clinical notes of EHRs to better understand the use of text in patient care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".