MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411027404 · doi:10.2196/68138

Trajectory-Ordered Objectives for Self-Supervised Representation Learning of Temporal Healthcare Data Using Transformers: Model Development and Evaluation Study

2025· article· en· W4411027404 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Amirahmadi, Kobra Etminani, Jonas Björk, Olle Melander, Mattias Ohlsson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningTransformerLanguage modelDeep learningEncoderFeature learningMedical diagnosisHealth careMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The growing availability of electronic health records (EHRs) presents an opportunity to enhance patient care by uncovering hidden health risks and improving informed decisions through advanced deep learning methods. However, modeling EHR sequential data, that is, patient trajectories, is challenging due to the evolving relationships between diagnoses and treatments over time. Significant progress has been achieved using transformers and self-supervised learning. While BERT-inspired models using masked language modeling (MLM) capture EHR context, they often struggle with the complex temporal dynamics of disease progression and interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to improve the modeling of EHR sequences by addressing the limitations of traditional transformer-based approaches in capturing complex temporal dependencies. METHODS: We introduce Trajectory Order Objective BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers; TOO-BERT), a transformer-based model that advances the MLM pretraining approach by integrating a novel TOO to better learn the complex sequential dependencies between medical events. TOO-Bert enhanced the learned context by MLM by pretraining the model to distinguish ordered sequences of medical codes from permuted ones in a patient trajectory. The TOO is enhanced by a conditional selection process that focus on medical codes or visits that frequently occur together, to further improve contextual understanding and strengthen temporal awareness. We evaluate TOO-BERT on 2 extensive EHR datasets, MIMIC-IV hospitalization records and the Malmo Diet and Cancer Cohort (MDC)-comprising approximately 10 and 8 million medical codes, respectively. TOO-BERT is compared against conventional machine learning methods, a transformer trained from scratch, and a transformer pretrained on MLM in predicting heart failure (HF), Alzheimer disease (AD), and prolonged length of stay (PLS). RESULTS: TOO-BERT outperformed conventional machine learning methods and transformer-based approaches in HF, AD, and PLS prediction across both datasets. In the MDC dataset, TOO-BERT improved HF and AD prediction, increasing area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) scores from 67.7 and 69.5 with the MLM-pretrained Transformer to 73.9 and 71.9, respectively. In the MIMIC-IV dataset, TOO-BERT enhanced HF and PLS prediction, raising AUC scores from 86.2 and 60.2 with the MLM-pretrained Transformer to 89.8 and 60.4, respectively. Notably, TOO-BERT demonstrated strong performance in HF prediction even with limited fine-tuning data, achieving AUC scores of 0.877 and 0.823, compared to 0.839 and 0.799 for the MLM-pretrained Transformer, when fine-tuned on only 50% (442/884) and 20% (176/884) of the training data, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of integrating temporal ordering objectives into MLM-pretrained models, enabling deeper insights into the complex temporal relationships inherent in EHR data. Attention analysis further highlights TOO-BERT's capability to capture and represent sophisticated structural patterns within patient trajectories, offering a more nuanced understanding of disease progression.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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