Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31426779›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Automated detection of altered mental status in emergency department clinical notes: a deep learning approach.

Jihad S Obeid, Erin R Weeda, Andrew J Matuskowitz, Kevin Gagnon, Tami Crawford, Christine M Carr, Lewis J Frey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jihad S ObeidBiomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. jobeid@musc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7193-7779
Erin R WeedaDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Outcome Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Andrew J MatuskowitzDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Kevin GagnonDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Tami CrawfordBiomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Christine M CarrBiomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Lewis J FreyBiomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Medical University of South Carolina · USUniversity of South Carolina · US

Funding

Subproject Title: Clinical Research Education, Mentoring and Career Development CoreU54GM104941 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE · PI Gregory E Hicks · 2013 to 2026
$60.5M
South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
HSRD VA I21 HX002700NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104941
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning has been used extensively in clinical text classification tasks. Deep learning approaches using word embeddings have been recently gaining momentum in biomedical applications. In an effort to automate the identification of altered mental status (AMS) in emergency department provider notes for the purpose of decision support, we compare the performance of classic bag-of-words-based machine learning classifiers and novel deep learning approaches.

methodsWe used a case-control study design to extract an adequate number of clinical notes with AMS and non-AMS based on ICD codes. The notes were parsed to extract the history of present illness, which was used as the clinical text for the classifiers. The notes were manually labeled by clinicians. As a baseline for comparison, we tested several traditional bag-of-words based classifiers. We then tested several deep learning models using a convolutional neural network architecture with three different types of word embeddings, a pre-trained word2vec model and two models without pre-training but with different word embedding dimensions.

resultsWe evaluated the models on 1130 labeled notes from the emergency department. The deep learning models had the best overall performance with an area under the ROC curve of 98.5% and an accuracy of 94.5%. Pre-training word embeddings on the unlabeled corpus reduced training iterations and had performance that was statistically no different than the other deep learning models.

conclusionThis supervised deep learning approach performs exceedingly well for the detection of AMS symptoms in clinical text in our environment. Further work is needed for the generalizability of these findings, including evaluation of these models in other types of clinical notes and other environments. The results seem promising for the ultimate use of these types of classifiers in combination with other information derived from the electronic health records as input for clinical decision support.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDeep LearningEmergency Service, HospitalAdultCase-Control StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesMaleMental DisordersNeural Networks, ComputerSensitivity and SpecificityAltered mental statusDecision supportDeep learningMachine learningPulmonary embolismWord embedding

Identifiers

PMID31426779
PMCPMC6701023
OpenAlexW2969705914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.