Text mining of outpatient narrative notes to predict the risk of psychiatric hospitalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary purpose of this paper is to investigate whether text mining of the outpatient narrative notes for patients with severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI) can strengthen the predictions concerning the probability of an upcoming hospital readmission. A five-year study of all clinical notes for SPMI patients at the outpatient clinic of a tertiary hospital was conducted. The clinical notes were studied using ensemble classification i.e., entity recognition. Confounding variables pertaining to the patient's health status were extracted by text mining. A mixed effects logistic regression model was used for estimating the re-hospitalization risk during a clinic visit. The factors included frequency and continuity of outpatient visits, alterations in medication prescriptions, the usage of long-acting anti-psychotic injections (LAIs), the presence or absence of a legal compulsory treatment order (CTO) and the hospitalizations. The appearance of certain words in the outpatient clinical notes has a statistically significant impact on the risk of an upcoming hospitalization. This study also reconfirms that the risk of a re-hospitalization of an SPMI patient is reduced by the presence of a CTO and the utilization of LAIs, whereas it is increased by the patient dropping out of outpatient care. Our findings pertaining to the risk of re-hospitalization could facilitate preventive interventions for SPMI patients with higher risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".