Back

Scalable Approach to Medical Wearable Post-Market Surveillance

Yoo, R. M.; Viggiano, B. T.; Pundi, K. N.; Fries, J. A.; Zahedivash, A.; Podchiyska, T.; Din, N.; Shah, N. H.

2023-11-15 health informatics
10.1101/2023.11.14.23298488 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveWe sought to develop a weak supervision-based approach to demonstrate feasibility of post-market surveillance of wearable devices that render AF pre-diagnosis. Materials and MethodsTwo approaches were evaluated to reduce clinical note labeling overhead for creating a training set for a classifier: one using programmatic codes, and the other using prompts to large language models (LLMs). Probabilistically labeled notes were then used to fine-tune a classifier, which identified patients with AF pre-diagnosis mentions in a note. A retrospective cohort study was conducted, where the baseline characteristics and subsequent care patterns of patients identified by the classifier were compared against those who did not receive pre-diagnosis. ResultsLabel model derived from prompt-based labeling heuristics using LLMs (precision = 0.67, recall = 0.83, F1 = 0.74) nearly achieved the performance of code-based heuristics (precision = 0.84, recall = 0.72, F1 = 0.77), while cutting down the cost to create a labeled training set. The classifier learned on the labeled notes accurately identified patients with AF pre-diagnosis (precision = 0.85, recall = 0.81, F1 = 0.83). Those patients who received pre-diagnosis exhibited different demographic and comorbidity characteristics, and were enriched for anticoagulation and eventual diagnosis of AF. At the index diagnosis, existence of pre-diagnosis did not stratify patients on clinical characteristics, but did correlate with anticoagulant prescription. Discussion and ConclusionOur work establishes the feasibility of an EHR-based surveillance system for wearable devices that render AF pre-diagnosis. Further work is necessary to generalize these findings for patient populations at other sites.

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.