Back

Identifying anaphylaxis using weakly-supervised prediction models and natural language processing

Williamson, B. D.; Cronkite, D. J.; Yu, O.; Ramaprasan, A.; Fuller, S.; Covey, J.; Kiniry, E.; Park, D.; Winter, R.; Whitaker, J.; McLemore, M. F.; Wittayanukorn, S.; Stojanovic, D.; Zhao, Y.; Dutcher, S.; Carrell, D. S.; Jackson, L. A.; Nelson, J. C.; Smith, J. C.

2026-06-17 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.06.09.26355005 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objectives Scalable computable phenotyping algorithms are critical for conducting high-throughput disease-outcome research in large, distributed-data electronic health record (EHR) and claims data settings. We developed and evaluated a claims- and EHR-based computable phenotyping algorithm for anaphylaxis, a rare acute condition that is challenging to accurately identify using claims data alone. Materials and Methods Potential anaphylaxis events came from two healthcare systems (Kaiser Permanente Washington [KPWA] and Vanderbilt University Medical Center [VUMC]). We engineered features from clinical text using automated natural language processing (NLP) methods. We then developed a phenotyping algorithm using four NLP- and diagnosis code-based silver labels (proxies for the gold-standard labels). Gold-standard abstracted outcomes were used to evaluate algorithm performance. Results The largest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.931 for an NLP-based silver-label model at KPWA. Depending on the model and healthcare system site, positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity at the threshold of predicted probability that maximized F1 score ranged from 0.52 to 0.77 (PPV) and 0.78 to 1 (sensitivity). Discussion NLP-based silver-label models had large AUC at KPWA but not at VUMC. This may be because clinical text at KPWA is only available for outpatient encounters and secure messaging. High sensitivity for identifying anaphylaxis can be obtained using our best-performing models. Conclusion The best-performing models had better PPV and sensitivity tradeoffs than prior bespoke anaphylaxis models with costly, manually curated features. The simplicity of the approach compared to traditional phenotyping methods allows it to be deployed easily at multiple health care systems.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.3%
2
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
14.1%
3
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
4
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.7%
5
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
7
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.5%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.5%
10
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.6%
11
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.5%
12
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
13
Epidemiology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
14
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
15
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
16
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
17
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
19
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
20
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
21
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
22
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
23
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.6%
24
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
25
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
26
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%