Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24285151›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2014

Automatically annotating topics in transcripts of patient-provider interactions via machine learning.

Byron C Wallace, M Barton Laws, Kevin Small, Ira B Wilson, Thomas A Trikalinos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Byron C WallaceDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University, School of Public Health, Providence, RI (BCW, MBL, IBW, TAT).
M Barton LawsDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University, School of Public Health, Providence, RI (BCW, MBL, IBW, TAT).
Kevin SmallNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (KS)
Ira B WilsonDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University, School of Public Health, Providence, RI (BCW, MBL, IBW, TAT).
Thomas A TrikalinosDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University, School of Public Health, Providence, RI (BCW, MBL, IBW, TAT).

Funding

Analyzing Patient-Provider Communication to Understand Disparities in HIV CareR01MH083595 · NIMH · TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER · PI WILSON, IRA B · 2008 to 2010
$1.7M
Improving the diagnosis and treatment of medication adherence problems in HIVK24MH092242 · NIMH · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI WILSON, IRA B · 2010 to 2014
$937k
NIMH NIH HHS 2 K24MH092242NIMH NIH HHS K24 MH092242NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH083595NIMH NIH HHS R01MH083595
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnnotated patient-provider encounters can provide important insights into clinical communication, ultimately suggesting how it might be improved to effect better health outcomes. But annotating outpatient transcripts with Roter or General Medical Interaction Analysis System (GMIAS) codes is expensive, limiting the scope of such analyses. We propose automatically annotating transcripts of patient-provider interactions with topic codes via machine learning.

methodsWe use a conditional random field (CRF) to model utterance topic probabilities. The model accounts for the sequential structure of conversations and the words comprising utterances. We assess predictive performance via 10-fold cross-validation over GMIAS-annotated transcripts of 360 outpatient visits (>230,000 utterances). We then use automated in place of manual annotations to reproduce an analysis of 116 additional visits from a randomized trial that used GMIAS to assess the efficacy of an intervention aimed at improving communication around antiretroviral (ARV) adherence.

resultsWith respect to 6 topic codes, the CRF achieved a mean pairwise kappa compared with human annotators of 0.49 (range: 0.47-0.53) and a mean overall accuracy of 0.64 (range: 0.62-0.66). With respect to the RCT reanalysis, results using automated annotations agreed with those obtained using manual ones. According to the manual annotations, the median number of ARV-related utterances without and with the intervention was 49.5 versus 76, respectively (paired sign test P = 0.07). When automated annotations were used, the respective numbers were 39 versus 55 (P = 0.04). While moderately accurate, the predicted annotations are far from perfect. Conversational topics are intermediate outcomes, and their utility is still being researched.

conclusionsThis foray into automated topic inference suggests that machine learning methods can classify utterances comprising patient-provider interactions into clinically relevant topics with reasonable accuracy.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCommunicationData Interpretation, StatisticalProfessional-Patient RelationsAnti-Retroviral AgentsEffect Modifier, EpidemiologicHumansMedication AdherenceReproducibility of ResultsAnti-Retroviral AgentscommunicationCRFinformaticsmachine learningnatural language processingpatient-provider interactionspeech acts

Identifiers

PMID24285151
PMCPMC3991772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.