Back

Predicting cause of death from free-text health summaries: development of an interpretable machine learning tool

McWilliams, C.; Walsh, E.; Huxor, A.; Turner, E. L.; Santos-Rodriguez, R.

2021-07-16 health informatics
10.1101/2021.07.15.21260082 medRxiv
Show abstract

Structured AbstractO_ST_ABSPurposeC_ST_ABSAccurately assigning cause of death is vital to understanding health outcomes in the population and improving health care provision. Cancer-specific cause of death is a key outcome in clinical trials, but assignment of cause of death from death certification is prone to misattribution, therefore can have an impact on cancer-specific trial mortality outcome measures. MethodsWe developed an interpretable machine learning classifier to predict prostate cancer death from free-text summaries of medical history for prostate cancer patients (CAP). We developed visualisations to highlight the predictive elements of the free-text summaries. These were used by the project analysts to gain an insight of how the predictions were made. ResultsCompared to independent human expert assignment, the classifier showed >90% accuracy in predicting prostate cancer death in test subset of the CAP dataset. Informal feedback suggested that these visualisations would require adaptation to be useful to clinical experts when assessing the appropriateness of these ML predictions in a clinical setting. Notably, key features used by the classifier to predict prostate cancer death and emphasised in the visualisations, were considered to be clinically important signs of progressing prostate cancer based on prior knowledge of the dataset. ConclusionThe results suggest that our interpretability approach improve analyst confidence in the tool, and reveal how the approach could be developed to produce a decision-support tool that would be useful to health care reviewers. As such, we have published the code on GitHub to allow others to apply our methodology to their data (https://zenodo.org/badge/latestdoi/294910364).

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.