Back

Towards Medical Billing Automation: NLP for Outpatient Clinician Note Classification

Crowson, M. G.; Alsentzer, E.; Fiskio, J. M.; Bates, D.

2023-07-12 health informatics
10.1101/2023.07.07.23292367 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesOur primary objective was to develop a natural language processing approach that accurately predicts outpatient Evaluation and Management (E/M) level of service (LoS) codes using clinicians notes from a health system electronic health record. A secondary objective was to investigate the impact of clinic note de-identification on document classification performance. MethodsWe used retrospective outpatient office clinic notes from four medical and surgical specialties. Classification models were fine-tuned on the clinic notes datasets and stratified by subspecialty. The success criteria for the classification tasks were the classification accuracy and F1-scores on internal test data. For the secondary objective, the dataset was de-identified using Named Entity Recognition (NER) to remove protected health information (PHI), and models were retrained. ResultsThe models demonstrated similar predictive performance across different specialties, except for internal medicine, which had the lowest classification accuracy across all model architectures. The models trained on the entire note corpus achieved an E/M LoS CPT code classification accuracy of 74.8% (CI 95: 74.1-75.6). However, the de-identified note corpus showed a markedly lower classification accuracy of 48.2% (CI 95: 47.7-48.6) compared to the model trained on the identified notes. ConclusionThe study demonstrates the potential of NLP-based document classifiers to accurately predict E/M LoS CPT codes using clinical notes from various medical and procedural specialties. The models performance suggests that the classification tasks complexity merits further investigation. The de-identification experiment demonstrated that de-identification may negatively impact classifier performance. Further research is needed to validate the performance of our NLP classifiers in different healthcare settings and patient populations and to investigate the potential implications of de-identification on model performance.

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.