A Machine Learning Approach for Identifying People With Neuroinfectious Diseases in Electronic Health Records: Algorithm Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Identifying neuroinfectious disease (NID) cases using International Classification of Diseases billing codes is often imprecise, while manual chart reviews are labor-intensive. Machine learning models can leverage unstructured electronic health records to detect subtle NID indicators, process large data volumes efficiently, and reduce misclassification. While accurate NID classification is needed for research and clinical decision support, using unstructured notes for this purpose remains underexplored. Objective: The objective of this study is to develop and validate a machine learning model to identify NIDs from unstructured patient notes. Methods: Clinical notes from patients who had undergone lumbar puncture were obtained using the electronic health record of an academic hospital network (Mass General Brigham [MGB]), with half associated with NID-related diagnostic codes. Ground truth was established by chart review with 6 NID-expert physicians. NID keywords were generated with regular expressions, and extracted texts were converted into bag-of-words representations using n-grams (n=1, 2, 3). Notes were randomly split into training (80%), 2400 notes out of 3000, and hold-out testing (20%), 600 notes out of 3000, sets. Feature selection was performed using logistic regression with L1 regularization. An extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model classified NID cases, and performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) and the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). The performance of the natural language processing (NLP) model was contrasted with the Llama 3.2 auto-regressive model on the MGB test set. The NLP model was additionally validated on external data from an independent hospital (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center [BIDMC]). Results: This study included 3000 patient notes from MGB from January 22, 2010, to September 21, 2023. Of 1284 initial n-gram features, 342 were selected, with the most significant features being "meningitis," "ventriculitis," and "meningoencephalitis." The XGBoost model achieved an AUROC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99) and AUPRC of 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.94) on MGB test data. In comparison, NID identification using International Classification of Diseases billing codes showed high sensitivity (0.97) but poor specificity (0.59), overestimating NID cases. Llama 3.2 improved specificity (0.94) but had low sensitivity (0.64) and an AUROC of 0.80. In contrast, our NLP model balanced specificity (0.96) and sensitivity (0.84), outperforming both methods in accuracy and reliability on MGB data. When tested on external data from BIDMC, the NLP model maintained an AUROC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99), with an AUPRC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.66-0.89). Conclusions: The NLP model accurately identifies NID cases from clinical notes. Validated across 2 independent hospital datasets, the model demonstrates feasibility for large-scale NID research and cohort generation. With further external validation, our results could be more generalizable to other institutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".