Back

A Deep Learning Approach for Automated Extraction of Functional Status and New York Heart Association Class for Heart Failure Patients During Clinical Encounters

Adejumo, P.; Thangaraj, P. M.; Dhingra, L. S.; Aminorroaya, A.; Zhou, X.; Brandt, C.; Xu, H.; Krumholz, H. M.; Khera, R.

2024-04-01 health informatics
10.1101/2024.03.30.24305095 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionSerial functional status assessments are critical to heart failure (HF) management but are often described narratively in documentation, limiting their use in quality improvement or patient selection for clinical trials. We developed and validated a deep learning-based natural language processing (NLP) strategy to extract functional status assessments from unstructured clinical notes. MethodsWe identified 26,577 HF patients across outpatient services at Yale New Haven Hospital (YNHH), Greenwich Hospital (GH), and Northeast Medical Group (NMG) (mean age 76.1 years; 52.0% women). We used expert annotated notes from YNHH for model development/internal testing and from GH and NMG for external validation. The primary outcomes were NLP models to detect (a) explicit New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, (b) HF symptoms during activity or rest, and (c) functional status assessment frequency. ResultsAmong 3,000 expert-annotated notes, 13.6% mentioned NYHA class, and 26.5% described HF symptoms. The model to detect NYHA classes achieved a class-weighted AUROC of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00) at YNHH, 0.98 (0.96-1.00) at NMG, and 0.98 (0.92-1.00) at GH. The activity-related HF symptom model achieved an AUROC of 0.94 (0.89-0.98) at YNHH, 0.94 (0.91-0.97) at NMG, and 0.95 (0.92-0.99) at GH. Deploying the NYHA model among 166,655 unannotated notes from YNHH identified 21,528 (12.9%) with NYHA mentions and 17,642 encounters (10.5%) classifiable into functional status groups based on activity-related symptoms. ConclusionsWe developed and validated an NLP approach to extract NYHA classification and activity-related HF symptoms from clinical notes, enhancing the ability to track optimal care and identify trial-eligible patients.

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.