Back

Automated Prioritization of Sick Newborns for Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing Using Clinical Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning

Peterson, B. D.; Hernandez, E. J.; Hobbs, C.; Malone Jenkins, S.; Moore, M. B.; Juarez, E. R.; Zoucha, S.; Sanford Kobayashi, E.; Bainbridge, M.; Oriol, A.; Brunelli, L.; Kingsmore, S.; Yandell, M.

2022-05-10 health informatics
10.1101/2022.05.06.22274688 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundRapidly and efficiently identifying critically ill infants for WGS is a costly and challenging task currently performed by scarce, highly trained experts, and is a major bottleneck for application of WGS in the NICU. Automated means to prioritize patients for WGS are thus badly needed. MethodsInstitutional databases of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) are logical starting points for identifying patients with undiagnosed Mendelian diseases. We have developed automated means to prioritize patients for Rapid and Whole Genome Sequencing (rWGS and WGS) directly from clinical notes. Our approach combines a Clinical Natural Language Processing (CNLP) workflow with a machine learning-based prioritization tool we call the Mendelian Phenotype Search Engine (MPSE). ResultsMPSE accurately and robustly identified NICU patients selected for WGS by clinical experts from Rady Childrens Hospital in San Diego (AUC 0.86) and the University of Utah (AUC 0.85). In addition to effectively identifying patients for WGS, MPSE scores also strongly prioritize diagnostic cases over non-diagnostic cases, with projected diagnostic yields exceeding 50% throughout the first and second quartiles of score-ranked patients. ConclusionsOur results indicate that an entirely automated pipeline for selecting acutely ill infants in neonatal intensive care units (NICU) for WGS can meet or exceed diagnostic yields obtained through current selection procedures, which require time-consuming manual review of clinical notes and histories by specialized personnel.

Matching journals

The top 4 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.