MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400487604 · doi:10.2196/54044

Predictive Model for Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase–Producing Bacterial Infections Using Natural Language Processing Technique and Open Data in Intensive Care Unit Environment: Retrospective Observational Study

2024· article· en· W4400487604 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G Ito, Shuntaro Yada, Shoko Wakamiya, Eiji Aramaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyJapan Science and Technology Agency
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicLogistic regressionArtificial intelligenceMachine learningIntensive care unitMedical recordComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Data setDemographicsMedicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Machine learning has advanced medical event prediction, mostly using private data. The public MIMIC-3 (Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III) data set, which contains detailed data on over 40,000 intensive care unit patients, stands out as it can help develop better models including structured and textual data. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to build and test a machine learning model using the MIMIC-3 data set to determine the effectiveness of information extracted from electronic medical record text using a named entity recognition, specifically QuickUMLS, for predicting important medical events. Using the prediction of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing bacterial infections as an example, this study shows how open data sources and simple technology can be useful for making clinically meaningful predictions. METHODS: The MIMIC-3 data set, including demographics, vital signs, laboratory results, and textual data, such as discharge summaries, was used. This study specifically targeted patients diagnosed with Klebsiella pneumoniae or Escherichia coli infection. Predictions were based on ESBL-producing bacterial standards and the minimum inhibitory concentration criteria. Both the structured data and extracted patient histories were used as predictors. In total, 2 models, an L1-regularized logistic regression model and a LightGBM model, were evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC-AUC) and the precision-recall curve area under the curve (PR-AUC). RESULTS: Of 46,520 MIMIC-3 patients, 4046 were identified with bacterial cultures, indicating the presence of K pneumoniae or E coli. After excluding patients who lacked discharge summary text, 3614 patients remained. The L1-penalized model, with variables from only the structured data, displayed a ROC-AUC of 0.646 and a PR-AUC of 0.307. The LightGBM model, combining structured and textual data, achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.707 and a PR-AUC of 0.369. Key contributors to the LightGBM model included patient age, duration since hospital admission, and specific medical history such as diabetes. The structured data-based model showed improved performance compared to the reference models. Performance was further improved when textual medical history was included. Compared to other models predicting drug-resistant bacteria, the results of this study ranked in the middle. Some misidentifications, potentially due to the limitations of QuickUMLS, may have affected the accuracy of the model. CONCLUSIONS: This study successfully developed a predictive model for ESBL-producing bacterial infections using the MIMIC-3 data set, yielding results consistent with existing literature. This model stands out for its transparency and reliance on open data and open-named entity recognition technology. The performance of the model was enhanced using textual information. With advancements in natural language processing tools such as BERT and GPT, the extraction of medical data from text holds substantial potential for future model optimization.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.004
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207