MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399462990 · doi:10.2196/52896

Unsupervised Feature Selection to Identify Important ICD-10 and ATC Codes for Machine Learning on a Cohort of Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: Retrospective Study

2024· article· en· W4399462990 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionAutoencoderArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceOverfittingMachine learningFeature (linguistics)Unsupervised learningPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The application of machine learning in health care often necessitates the use of hierarchical codes such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) systems. These codes classify diseases and medications, respectively, thereby forming extensive data dimensions. Unsupervised feature selection tackles the "curse of dimensionality" and helps to improve the accuracy and performance of supervised learning models by reducing the number of irrelevant or redundant features and avoiding overfitting. Techniques for unsupervised feature selection, such as filter, wrapper, and embedded methods, are implemented to select the most important features with the most intrinsic information. However, they face challenges due to the sheer volume of ICD and ATC codes and the hierarchical structures of these systems. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare several unsupervised feature selection methods for ICD and ATC code databases of patients with coronary artery disease in different aspects of performance and complexity and select the best set of features representing these patients. Methods: We compared several unsupervised feature selection methods for 2 ICD and 1 ATC code databases of 51,506 patients with coronary artery disease in Alberta, Canada. Specifically, we used the Laplacian score, unsupervised feature selection for multicluster data, autoencoder-inspired unsupervised feature selection, principal feature analysis, and concrete autoencoders with and without ICD or ATC tree weight adjustment to select the 100 best features from over 9000 ICD and 2000 ATC codes. We assessed the selected features based on their ability to reconstruct the initial feature space and predict 90-day mortality following discharge. We also compared the complexity of the selected features by mean code level in the ICD or ATC tree and the interpretability of the features in the mortality prediction task using Shapley analysis. Results: In feature space reconstruction and mortality prediction, the concrete autoencoder-based methods outperformed other techniques. Particularly, a weight-adjusted concrete autoencoder variant demonstrated improved reconstruction accuracy and significant predictive performance enhancement, confirmed by DeLong and McNemar tests (P<.05). Concrete autoencoders preferred more general codes, and they consistently reconstructed all features accurately. Additionally, features selected by weight-adjusted concrete autoencoders yielded higher Shapley values in mortality prediction than most alternatives. Conclusions: This study scrutinized 5 feature selection methods in ICD and ATC code data sets in an unsupervised context. Our findings underscore the superiority of the concrete autoencoder method in selecting salient features that represent the entire data set, offering a potential asset for subsequent machine learning research. We also present a novel weight adjustment approach for the concrete autoencoders specifically tailored for ICD and ATC code data sets to enhance the generalizability and interpretability of the selected features.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.380 · 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