Extracting Critical Information from Unstructured Clinicians’ Notes Data to Identify Dementia Severity Using a Rule-Based Approach: Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The severity of Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) is rarely documented in structured data fields in electronic health records (EHRs). Although this information is important for clinical monitoring and decision-making, it is often undocumented or “hidden” in unstructured text fields and not readily available for clinicians to act upon. Objective We aimed to assess the feasibility and potential bias in using keywords and rule-based matching for obtaining information about the severity of ADRD from EHR data. Methods We used EHR data from a large academic health care system that included patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of ADRD based on ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision) and ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) codes between 2014 and 2019. We first assessed the presence of ADRD severity information and then the severity of ADRD in the EHR. Clinicians’ notes were used to determine the severity of ADRD based on two criteria: (1) scores from the Mini Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment and (2) explicit terms for ADRD severity (eg, “mild dementia” and “advanced Alzheimer disease”). We compiled a list of common ADRD symptoms, cognitive test names, and disease severity terms, refining it iteratively based on previous literature and clinical expertise. Subsequently, we used rule-based matching in Python using standard open-source data analysis libraries to identify the context in which specific words or phrases were mentioned. We estimated the prevalence of documented ADRD severity and assessed the performance of our rule-based algorithm. Results We included 9115 eligible patients with over 65,000 notes from the providers. Overall, 22.93% (2090/9115) of patients were documented with mild ADRD, 20.87% (1902/9115) were documented with moderate or severe ADRD, and 56.20% (5123/9115) did not have any documentation of the severity of their ADRD. For the task of determining the presence of any ADRD severity information, our algorithm achieved an accuracy of >95%, specificity of >95%, sensitivity of >90%, and an F1-score of >83%. For the specific task of identifying the actual severity of ADRD, the algorithm performed well with an accuracy of >91%, specificity of >80%, sensitivity of >88%, and F1-score of >92%. Comparing patients with mild ADRD to those with more advanced ADRD, the latter group tended to contain older, more likely female, and Black patients, and having received their diagnoses in primary care or in-hospital settings. Relative to patients with undocumented ADRD severity, those with documented ADRD severity had a similar distribution in terms of sex, race, and rural or urban residence. Conclusions Our study demonstrates the feasibility of using a rule-based matching algorithm to identify ADRD severity from unstructured EHR report data. However, it is essential to acknowledge potential biases arising from differences in documentation practices across various health care systems.
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 | 0.063 | 0.186 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".