Multi-stage Retrieve and Re-rank Model for Automatic Medical Coding Recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) serves as a definitive medical classification system encompassing a wide range of diseases and conditions. The primary objective of ICD indexing is to allocate a subset of ICD codes to a medical record, which facilitates standardized documentation and management of various health conditions. Most existing approaches have suffered from selecting the proper label subsets from an extremely large ICD collection with a heavy long-tailed label distribution. In this paper, we leverage a multi-stage "retrieve and re-rank" framework as a novel solution to ICD indexing, via a hybrid discrete retrieval method, and re-rank retrieved candidates with contrastive learning that allows the model to make more accurate predictions from a simplified label space. The retrieval model is a hybrid of auxiliary knowledge of the electronic health records (EHR) and a discrete retrieval method (BM25), which efficiently collects high-quality candidates. In the last stage, we propose a label co-occurrence guided contrastive re-ranking model, which re-ranks the candidate labels by pulling together the clinical notes with positive ICD codes. Experimental results show the proposed method achieves state-of-the-art performance on a number of measures on the MIMIC-III benchmark.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".