Approaches to Extracting Patterns of Service Utilization for Patients with Complex Conditions: Graph Community Detection vs. Natural Language Processing Clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As patients interact with a healthcare service system, patterns of service utilization (PSUs) emerge. These PSUs are embedded in the sparse high-dimensional space of longitudinal cross-continuum health service encounter data. Once extracted, PSUs can provide quality assurance/quality improvement (QA/QI) efforts with the information required to optimize service system structures and functions. This may improve outcomes for complex patients with chronic diseases. Method: Working with longitudinal cross-continuum encounter data from a regional health service system, various pattern detection analyses were conducted, employing (1) graph community detection algorithms, (2) natural language processing (NLP) clustering, and (3) a hybrid NLP–graph method. Result: These approaches produced similar PSUs, as determined from a clinical perspective by clinical subject matter experts and service system operations experts. Conclusions: The similarity in the results provides validation for the methodologies. Moreover, the results stress the need to engage with clinical or service system operations experts, both in providing the taxonomies and ontologies of the service system, the cohort definitions, and determining the level of granularity that produces the most clinically meaningful results. Finally, the uniqueness of each approach provides an opportunity to take advantage of the various analytical capabilities that each approach brings, which will be further explored in our future research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".