MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404667492 · doi:10.2196/60095

Developing an ICD-10 Coding Assistant: Pilot Study Using RoBERTa and GPT-4 for Term Extraction and Description-Based Code Selection

2024· article· en· W4404667492 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sander Puts, Catharina M.L. Zegers, André Dekker, Iñigo Bermejo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintCoding (social sciences)Selection (genetic algorithm)Code (set theory)Term (time)Computer scienceStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The International Classification of Diseases (ICD), developed by the World Health Organization, standardizes health condition coding to support health care policy, research, and billing, but artificial intelligence automation, while promising, still underperforms compared with human accuracy and lacks the explainability needed for adoption in medical settings. Objective: The potential of large language models for assisting medical coders in the ICD-10 coding was explored through the development of a computer-assisted coding system. This study aimed to augment human coding by initially identifying lead terms and using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-based methods for computer-assisted coding enhancement. Methods: The explainability dataset from the CodiEsp challenge (CodiEsp-X) was used, featuring 1000 Spanish clinical cases annotated with ICD-10 codes. A new dataset, CodiEsp-X-lead, was generated using GPT-4 to replace full-textual evidence annotations with lead term annotations. A Robustly Optimized BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) Pretraining Approach transformer model was fine-tuned for named entity recognition to extract lead terms. GPT-4 was subsequently employed to generate code descriptions from the extracted textual evidence. Using a RAG approach, ICD codes were assigned to the lead terms by querying a vector database of ICD code descriptions with OpenAI's text-embedding-ada-002 model. Results: The fine-tuned Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach achieved an overall F1-score of 0.80 for ICD lead term extraction on the new CodiEsp-X-lead dataset. GPT-4-generated code descriptions reduced retrieval failures in the RAG approach by approximately 5% for both diagnoses and procedures. However, the overall explainability F1-score for the CodiEsp-X task was limited to 0.305, significantly lower than the state-of-the-art F1-score of 0.633. The diminished performance was partly due to the reliance on code descriptions, as some ICD codes lacked descriptions, and the approach did not fully align with the medical coder's workflow. Conclusions: While lead term extraction showed promising results, the subsequent RAG-based code assignment using GPT-4 and code descriptions was less effective. Future research should focus on refining the approach to more closely mimic the medical coder's workflow, potentially integrating the alphabetic index and official coding guidelines, rather than relying solely on code descriptions. This alignment may enhance system accuracy and better support medical coders in practice.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207