Predicting which patients with cancer will see a psychiatrist or counsellor from their initial oncology consultation document using natural language processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer often have unmet psychosocial needs. Early detection of who requires referral to a counsellor or psychiatrist may improve their care. This work used natural language processing to predict which patients will see a counsellor or psychiatrist from a patient's initial oncology consultation document. We believe this is the first use of artificial intelligence to predict psychiatric outcomes from non-psychiatric medical documents. METHODS: This retrospective prognostic study used data from 47,625 patients at BC Cancer. We analyzed initial oncology consultation documents using traditional and neural language models to predict whether patients would see a counsellor or psychiatrist in the 12 months following their initial oncology consultation. RESULTS: Here, we show our best models achieved a balanced accuracy (receiver-operating-characteristic area-under-curve) of 73.1% (0.824) for predicting seeing a psychiatrist, and 71.0% (0.784) for seeing a counsellor. Different words and phrases are important for predicting each outcome. CONCLUSION: These results suggest natural language processing can be used to predict psychosocial needs of patients with cancer from their initial oncology consultation document. Future research could extend this work to predict the psychosocial needs of medical patients in other settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".