Selective prediction for extracting unstructured clinical data
Swaminathan, A.; Lopez, I.; Wang, W.; Srivastava, U.; Tran, E.; Bhargava-Shah, A.; Wu, J. Y.; Ren, A.; Caoili, K.; Bui, B.; Alkhani, L.; Lee, S.; Mohit, N.; Seo, N.; Macedo, N.; Cheng, W.; Liu, C.; Thomas, R.; Chen, J. H.; Gevaert, O.
Show abstract
Electronic health records represent a large data source for outcomes research, but the majority of EHR data is unstructured (e.g. free text of clinical notes) and not conducive to computational methods. While there are currently approaches to handle unstructured data, such as manual abstraction, structured proxy variables, and model-assisted abstraction, these methods are time-consuming, not scalable, and require clinical domain expertise. This paper aims to determine whether selective prediction, which gives a model the option to abstain from generating a prediction, can improve the accuracy and efficiency of unstructured clinical data abstraction. We trained selective prediction models to identify the presence of four distinct clinical variables in free-text pathology reports: primary cancer diagnosis of glioblastoma (GBM, n = 659), resection of rectal adenocarcinoma (RRA, n = 601), and two procedures for resection of rectal adenocarcinoma: abdominoperineal resection (APR, n = 601) and low anterior resection (LAR, n = 601). Data were manually abstracted from pathology reports and used to train L1-regularized logistic regression models using term-frequency-inverse-document-frequency features. Data points that the model was unable to predict with high certainty were manually abstracted. All four selective prediction models achieved a test-set sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value above 0.91. The use of selective prediction led to sizable gains in automation (anywhere from 57% to 95% reduction in manual abstraction of charts across the four outcomes). For our GBM classifier, the selective prediction model saw improvements to sensitivity (0.94 to 0.96), specificity (0.79 to 0.96), PPV (0.89 to 0.98), and NPV (0.88 to 0.91) when compared to a non-selective classifier. Selective prediction using utility-based probability thresholds can facilitate unstructured data extraction by giving "easy" charts to a model and "hard" charts to human abstractors, thus increasing efficiency while maintaining or improving accuracy.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review 95%
- Development and Validation of Phenotype Classifiers across Multiple Sites in the Observational Health Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Network 95%
- Large Language Models Facilitate the Generation of Electronic Health Record Phenotyping Algorithms 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated abstraction of clinical parameters of multiple myeloma from real-world clinical notes using large language models 94%
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 94%
- ARDSFlag: An NLP/Machine Learning Algorithm to Visualize and Detect High-Probability ARDS Admissions Independent of Provider Recognition and Billing Codes 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- ChatGPT in glioma patient adjuvant therapy decision making: ready to assume the role of a doctor in the tumour board? 93%
- User Testing of a Diagnostic Decision Support System with Machine-assisted Chart Review to Facilitate Clinical Genomic Diagnosis 92%
- Development of a customised data management system for a COVID-19-adapted colorectal cancer pathway 92%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.