Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32028374›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology2020

Classification of Current Procedural Terminology Codes from Electronic Health Record Data Using Machine Learning.

Michael L Burns, Michael R Mathis, John Vandervest, Xinyu Tan, Bo Lu, Douglas A Colquhoun, Nirav Shah, Sachin Kheterpal, Leif Saager

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Michael L BurnsFrom the Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan (M.L.B., M.R.M., J.V., X.T., B.L., D.A.C., N.S., S.K., L.S.) Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany (L.S.).
Michael R Mathis
John Vandervest
Xinyu Tan
Bo Lu
Douglas A Colquhoun
Nirav Shah
Sachin Kheterpal
Leif Saager

Funding

University of Michigan Anesthesiology Post-Doctoral Research Training ProgramT32GM103730 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Chad M Brummett, SACHIN KHETERPAL · 2014 to 2026
$1.9M
Early Diagnosis of Heart Failure: A Perioperative Data-Driven ApproachK01HL141701 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MATHIS, MICHAEL ROBERT · 2018 to 2022
$862k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL141701NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM103730
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate anesthesiology procedure code data are essential to quality improvement, research, and reimbursement tasks within anesthesiology practices. Advanced data science techniques, including machine learning and natural language processing, offer opportunities to develop classification tools for Current Procedural Terminology codes across anesthesia procedures.

methodsModels were created using a Train/Test dataset including 1,164,343 procedures from 16 academic and private hospitals. Five supervised machine learning models were created to classify anesthesiology Current Procedural Terminology codes, with accuracy defined as first choice classification matching the institutional-assigned code existing in the perioperative database. The two best performing models were further refined and tested on a Holdout dataset from a single institution distinct from Train/Test. A tunable confidence parameter was created to identify cases for which models were highly accurate, with the goal of at least 95% accuracy, above the reported 2018 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Baltimore, Maryland) fee-for-service accuracy. Actual submitted claim data from billing specialists were used as a reference standard.

resultsSupport vector machine and neural network label-embedding attentive models were the best performing models, respectively, demonstrating overall accuracies of 87.9% and 84.2% (single best code), and 96.8% and 94.0% (within top three). Classification accuracy was 96.4% in 47.0% of cases using support vector machine and 94.4% in 62.2% of cases using label-embedding attentive model within the Train/Test dataset. In the Holdout dataset, respective classification accuracies were 93.1% in 58.0% of cases and 95.0% among 62.0%. The most important feature in model training was procedure text.

conclusionsThrough application of machine learning and natural language processing techniques, highly accurate real-time models were created for anesthesiology Current Procedural Terminology code classification. The increased processing speed and a priori targeted accuracy of this classification approach may provide performance optimization and cost reduction for quality improvement, research, and reimbursement tasks reliant on anesthesiology procedure codes.

Indexed as

Current Procedural TerminologyNeural Networks, ComputerAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolDatabases, FactualElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32028374
PMCPMC7665375

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.