Back

Automated Evaluation of Antibiotic Prescribing Guideline Concordance in Pediatric Sinusitis Clinical Notes

Weissenbacher, D.; Dutcher, L.; Boustany, M.; Cressman, L.; OCOnnor, K.; Hamilton, K. W.; Gerber, J.; Grundmeier, R.; Gonzalez-Hernandez, G.

2024-08-09 pediatrics
10.1101/2024.08.09.24311714 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundEnsuring antibiotics are prescribed only when necessary is crucial for maintaining their effectiveness and is a key focus of public health initiatives worldwide. In cases of sinusitis, among the most common reasons for antibiotic prescriptions in children, health-care providers must distinguish between bacterial and viral causes based on clinical signs and symptoms. However, due to the overlap between symptoms of acute sinusitis and viral upper respiratory infections, antibiotics are often over-prescribed. ObjectivesCurrently, there are no electronic health record (EHR)-based methods, such as lab tests or ICD-10 codes, to retroactively assess the appropriateness of these prescriptions, making manual chart reviews the only available method for evaluation, which is time-intensive and not feasible at a large scale. In this study, we propose using natural language processing to automate this assessment. MethodsWe developed, trained, and evaluated generative models to classify the appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions in 300 clinical notes from pediatric patients with sinusitis seen at a primary care practice in the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia network. We utilized standard prompt engineering techniques, including few-shot learning and chain-of-thought prompting, to refine an initial prompt. Additionally, we employed Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning to train a medium-sized generative model Llama 3 70B-instruct. ResultsWhile parameter-efficient fine-tuning did not enhance performance, the combination of few-shot learning and chain-of-thought prompting proved beneficial. Our best results were achieved using the largest generative model publicly available to date, the Llama 3.1 405B-instruct. On our test set, the model correctly identified 91.4% of the 35 notes where antibiotic prescription was appropriate and 71.4% of the 14 notes where it was not appropriate. However, notes that were insufficiently, vaguely, or ambiguously documented by physicians posed a challenge to our model, as none evaluation sets were accurately classified. ConclusionOur generative model demonstrated strong performance in the challenging task of chart review. This level of performance may be sufficient for deploying the model within the EHR, where it can assist physicians in real-time to prescribe antibiotics in concordance with the guidelines, or for monitoring antibiotic stewardship on a large scale.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.4%
2
BioData Mining
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
3
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.9%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 29%
4.2%
6
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.6%
7
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
8
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
9
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.3%
10
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.1%
11
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.5%
12
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
13
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
14
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
15
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
16
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
17
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.7%
18
Ear & Hearing
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
19
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
20
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
21
Journal of Hospital Infection
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
22
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.9%
23
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
24
Archives of Disease in Childhood
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
25
Pediatric Pulmonology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
26
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
28
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
29
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
30
JAMA Pediatrics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%