MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404448611 · doi:10.2196/64113

Identification of Patients With Congestive Heart Failure From the Electronic Health Records of Two Hospitals: Retrospective Study

2024· article· en· W4404448611 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Sumsion, Elijah Davis, Marta Fernandes, Ruoqi Wei, Rebecca Milde, Jet Veltink, Wan Yee Kong, Yiwen Xiong, Samvrit Rao, Tara M Westover, Lydia Petersen, Niels Turley, Arjun Singh, Stephanie S. Buss, Shibani S. Mukerji, Sahar F. Zafar, Sudeshna Das, Valdery Moura, Manohar Ghanta, Aditya Gupta, Jennifer A. Kim, Katie L. Stone, Emmanuel Mignot, Dennis Hwang, Lynn Marie Trotti, Gari D. Clifford, Umakanth Katwa, Robert J. Thomas, M. Brandon Westover, Haoqi Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsHealth recordsHeart failureMedicinePreprintElectronic recordsElectronic health recordIdentification (biology)Retrospective cohort studyMedical emergencyCardiologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineHealth careComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Congestive heart failure (CHF) is a common cause of hospital admissions. Medical records contain valuable information about CHF, but manual chart review is time-consuming. Claims databases (using International Classification of Diseases [ICD] codes) provide a scalable alternative but are less accurate. Automated analysis of medical records through natural language processing (NLP) enables more efficient adjudication but has not yet been validated across multiple sites. OBJECTIVE: We seek to accurately classify the diagnosis of CHF based on structured and unstructured data from each patient, including medications, ICD codes, and information extracted through NLP of notes left by providers, by comparing the effectiveness of several machine learning models. METHODS: We developed an NLP model to identify CHF from medical records using electronic health records (EHRs) from two hospitals (Mass General Hospital and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; from 2010 to 2023), with 2800 clinical visit notes from 1821 patients. We trained and compared the performance of logistic regression, random forests, and RoBERTa models. We measured model performance using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). These models were also externally validated by training the data on one hospital sample and testing on the other, and an overall estimated error was calculated using a completely random sample from both hospitals. RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 66.7 (SD 17.2) years; 978 (54.3%) out of 1821 patients were female. The logistic regression model achieved the best performance using a combination of ICD codes, medications, and notes, with an AUROC of 0.968 (95% CI 0.940-0.982) and an AUPRC of 0.921 (95% CI 0.835-0.969). The models that only used ICD codes or medications had lower performance. The estimated overall error rate in a random EHR sample was 1.6%. The model also showed high external validity from training on Mass General Hospital data and testing on Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center data (AUROC 0.927, 95% CI 0.908-0.944) and vice versa (AUROC 0.968, 95% CI 0.957-0.976). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed EHR-based phenotyping model for CHF achieved excellent performance, external validity, and generalization across two institutions. The model enables multiple downstream uses, paving the way for large-scale studies of CHF treatment effectiveness, comorbidities, outcomes, and mechanisms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207