Improving Phenotyping of Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases Through Automated Processing of Discharge Summaries: Multicenter Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Valuable insights gathered by clinicians during their inquiries and documented in textual reports are often unavailable in the structured data recorded in electronic health records (EHRs). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to highlight that mining unstructured textual data with natural language processing techniques complements the available structured data and enables more comprehensive patient phenotyping. A proof-of-concept for patients diagnosed with specific autoimmune diseases is presented, in which the extraction of information on laboratory tests and drug treatments is performed. METHODS: We collected EHRs available in the clinical data warehouse of the Greater Paris University Hospitals from 2012 to 2021 for patients hospitalized and diagnosed with 1 of 4 immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic sclerosis, antiphospholipid syndrome, and Takayasu arteritis. Then, we built, trained, and validated natural language processing algorithms on 103 discharge summaries selected from the cohort and annotated by a clinician. Finally, all discharge summaries in the cohort were processed with the algorithms, and the extracted data on laboratory tests and drug treatments were compared with the structured data. RESULTS: -scores of 71.1 (95% CI 63.6-77.8) for the laboratory tests and 89.3 (95% CI 85.9-91.6) for the drugs. Application of the algorithms to 18,604 EHRs increased the detection of antibody results and drug treatments. For instance, among patients in the systemic lupus erythematosus cohort with positive antinuclear antibodies, the rate increased from 18.34% (752/4102) to 71.87% (2949/4102), making the results more consistent with the literature. CONCLUSIONS: While challenges remain in standardizing laboratory tests, particularly with abbreviations, this work, based on secondary use of clinical data, demonstrates that automated processing of discharge summaries enriched the information available in structured data and facilitated more comprehensive patient profiling.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".