Classifying Adverse Events from SOAP Notes and Sensor Features in a Clinical Trial of Older Adults
Marchal, N.; Popescu, M.; Robinson, E.; Wolpert, R.; Song, X.
Show abstract
Early detection of adverse events and fall injuries may improve patient safety outcomes for clinical trials in geriatric populations. This study evaluates multimodal models combining structured SOAP notes and remote biophysical sensor measurements to classify adverse event occurrences and fall events in a clinical trial with rural older adults participants. XGBoost classifiers were trained on BioBERT, BioClinicalBERT and BERT-Uncased SOAP note embeddings, with and without fused sensor features, and compared across control and intervention cohorts. Non-fused embedding features performed best on Subjective notes for adverse event classification from BioClinicalBERT (AUROC=0.89, Recall=0.88) for controls and BioBERT (AUROC=0.86, Recall=0.73) in the intervention arm. Sensor features provided higher discrimination and recall for adverse events in controls (AUROC=0.68, Recall=0.80) than the intervention arm (AUROC=0.57, Recall=0.10). For fall classification, sensor features outperformed embeddings in the control (AUROC=0.87, Recall=0.32) and intervention (AUROC=0.84, Recall=0.12) cohorts. Assessment and Planning note components had significantly lower AUROC across all embedding feature models. Fusing sensor and embedding features resulted in near-perfect performance from Subjective and Objective notes (AUROC=1.0, Recall=1.0), significantly better than non-fused embeddings. Analysis of NER tokens extracted from SOAP notes showed that model performance differences are associated with cohort-specific documentation practices. SOAP contents in the intervention cohort were more patient-focused, with higher word counts in Subjective sections and narrower AUROC confidence intervals, reflecting increased clinical engagement and improved event capture. These results suggest that combining clinical narratives with continuous sensor measurements can improve the prediction of adverse events and fall injuries, which may increase clinical trial safety and reduce the frequency of in-person assessments.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated stratification of trauma injury severity across multiple body regions using multi-modal, multi-class machine learning models 94%
- Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review 94%
- Empowering Personalized Pharmacogenomics with Generative AI Solutions 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- SymScore: Machine Learning Accuracy Meets Transparency in a Symbolic Regression-Based Clinical Score Generator 94%
- AI-MET: A Deep Learning-based Clinical Decision Support System for Distinguishing Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children from Endemic Typhus 93%
- Multimodal Speech Biomarkers for Remote Monitoring of ALS Disease Progression 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Identification of predictive patient characteristics for assessing the probability of COVID-19 in-hospital mortality 93%
- From theoretical models to practical deployment: A perspective and case study of opportunities and challenges in AI-driven healthcare research for low-income settings 93%
- Developing and validating an explainable digital mortality prediction tool for extremely preterm infants 93%
"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.