MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393932986 · doi:10.2196/53367

Moving Biosurveillance Beyond Coded Data Using AI for Symptom Detection From Physician Notes: Retrospective Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W4393932986 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew McMurry, Amy R. Zipursky, Alon Geva, Karen L. Olson, James Jones, Vladimir Ignatov, Timothy A. Miller, Kenneth D. Mandl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCenters for Disease Control and PreventionU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesNational Institutes of HealthNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentRetrospective cohort studyGold standard (test)CohortMedical recordPopulationCohort studyArtificial intelligencePediatricsInternal medicineComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Real-time surveillance of emerging infectious diseases necessitates a dynamically evolving, computable case definition, which frequently incorporates symptom-related criteria. For symptom detection, both population health monitoring platforms and research initiatives primarily depend on structured data extracted from electronic health records. Objective This study sought to validate and test an artificial intelligence (AI)–based natural language processing (NLP) pipeline for detecting COVID-19 symptoms from physician notes in pediatric patients. We specifically study patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) who can be sentinel cases in an outbreak. Methods Subjects in this retrospective cohort study are patients who are 21 years of age and younger, who presented to a pediatric ED at a large academic children’s hospital between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2022. The ED notes for all patients were processed with an NLP pipeline tuned to detect the mention of 11 COVID-19 symptoms based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. For a gold standard, 3 subject matter experts labeled 226 ED notes and had strong agreement (F1-score=0.986; positive predictive value [PPV]=0.972; and sensitivity=1.0). F1-score, PPV, and sensitivity were used to compare the performance of both NLP and the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) coding to the gold standard chart review. As a formative use case, variations in symptom patterns were measured across SARS-CoV-2 variant eras. Results There were 85,678 ED encounters during the study period, including 4% (n=3420) with patients with COVID-19. NLP was more accurate at identifying encounters with patients that had any of the COVID-19 symptoms (F1-score=0.796) than ICD-10 codes (F1-score =0.451). NLP accuracy was higher for positive symptoms (sensitivity=0.930) than ICD-10 (sensitivity=0.300). However, ICD-10 accuracy was higher for negative symptoms (specificity=0.994) than NLP (specificity=0.917). Congestion or runny nose showed the highest accuracy difference (NLP: F1-score=0.828 and ICD-10: F1-score=0.042). For encounters with patients with COVID-19, prevalence estimates of each NLP symptom differed across variant eras. Patients with COVID-19 were more likely to have each NLP symptom detected than patients without this disease. Effect sizes (odds ratios) varied across pandemic eras. Conclusions This study establishes the value of AI-based NLP as a highly effective tool for real-time COVID-19 symptom detection in pediatric patients, outperforming traditional ICD-10 methods. It also reveals the evolving nature of symptom prevalence across different virus variants, underscoring the need for dynamic, technology-driven approaches in infectious disease surveillance.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207