Back

Multimodal Data Hybrid Fusion and Natural Language Processing for Clinical Prediction Models

Ye, J.; Hai, J.; Song, J.; Wang, Z.

2023-08-25 health informatics
10.1101/2023.08.24.23294597 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo propose a novel approach for enhancing clinical prediction models by combining structured and unstructured data with multimodal data fusion. MethodsWe presented a comprehensive framework that integrated multimodal data sources, including textual clinical notes, structured electronic health records (EHRs), and relevant clinical data from National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) datasets. We proposed a novel hybrid fusion method, which incorporated state-of-the-art pre-trained language model, to integrate unstructured clinical text with structured EHR data and other multimodal sources, thereby capturing a more comprehensive representation of patient information. ResultsThe experimental results demonstrated that the hybrid fusion approach significantly improved the performance of clinical prediction models compared to traditional fusion frameworks and unimodal models that rely solely on structured data or text information alone. The proposed hybrid fusion system with RoBERTa language encoder achieved the best prediction of the Top 1 injury with an accuracy of 75.00% and Top 3 injuries with an accuracy of 93.54%. ConclusionOur study highlights the potential of integrating natural language processing (NLP) techniques with multimodal data fusion for enhancing clinical prediction models performances. By leveraging the rich information present in clinical text and combining it with structured EHR data, the proposed approach can improve the accuracy and robustness of predictive models. The approach has the potential to advance clinical decision support systems, enable personalized medicine, and facilitate evidence-based health care practices. Future research can further explore the application of this hybrid fusion approach in real-world clinical settings and investigate its impact on improving patient outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 5 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.