MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409357119 · doi:10.2196/63157

A Machine Learning Approach for Identifying People With Neuroinfectious Diseases in Electronic Health Records: Algorithm Development and Validation

2025· article· en· W4409357119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arjun Singh, Shadi Sartipi, Haoqi Sun, Rebecca Milde, Niels Turley, Carson Quinn, G. Kyle Harrold, Rebecca L. Gillani, Sarah E. Turbett, Sudeshna Das, Sahar F. Zafar, Marta Fernandes, M. Brandon Westover, Shibani S. Mukerji

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
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
KeywordsPreprintComputer scienceHealth recordsArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmElectronic health recordMachine learningHealth careWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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