Assessing the effect of preprocessing of clinical notes on classification tasks and similarity measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Unstructured text data (UTD) in electronic medical records (EMRs) may be challenging to use because of noise including spelling errors, abbreviations, and punctuation symbols. It is expected that preprocessing improves the performance of statistical or machine learning models. Objectives: The research objectives were to assess the effect of the number and order of preprocessing methods (1) on the detection of health conditions from UTD, (2) on clinical and demographic cohort selection criteria in UTD, (3) on the similarity of information contained in pairs of EMR notes for the same patient, and (4) on accurate de-identification of UTD. Method: Study data were from the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) challenges. The 2008, 2014 and 2018 i2b2 datasets were used for different Objectives. Preprocessing methods included tokenization, removing punctuation symbols, correcting spelling errors, expanding abbreviations, word stemming, and lemmatization. A nested experimental design was adopted, in which order was nested within the number of methods. Balanced random forest, support vector machine, and bidirectional long short-term memory-conditional random field models were used for Objectives 1, 2, and 4, respectively, and model performance was evaluated by accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and precision. For Objective 3, cosine similarity was used to measure the similarity between pairs of notes. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and descriptive statistics were used to test research hypotheses. Results: Mean sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, accuracy, and precision were similar across the orders of methods and numbers of methods, for Objectives 1 and 2. Cosine similarity scores were similar across orders of methods for Objective 3. Deep learning models for Objective 4 were not trainable with the preprocessed data. The ANOVA F test results showed no significant effect of the order of methods for different numbers and identical mean values of outcome variables implied no difference among the numbers of methods. Conclusion: The order and number of preprocessing methods did not have any effect on model performance for a variety of tasks applied to text data. Future research could investigate the effect of the source of spelling correction libraries, medical dictionaries, and abbreviation lists on model performance results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".