Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34136824›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2021

Impact of Different Approaches to Preparing Notes for Analysis With Natural Language Processing on the Performance of Prediction Models in Intensive Care.

Malini Mahendra, Yanting Luo, Hunter Mills, Gundolf Schenk, Atul J Butte, R Adams Dudley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Natural language processing in the intensive care unit: A scoping review.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Malini MahendraDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Critical Care, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Yanting LuoPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Hunter MillsBakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Gundolf SchenkBakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Atul J ButteBakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
R Adams DudleySchool of Medicine, School of Public Health, and Institute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate whether different approaches in note text preparation (known as preprocessing) can impact machine learning model performance in the case of mortality prediction ICU.

designClinical note text was used to build machine learning models for adults admitted to the ICU. Preprocessing strategies studied were none (raw text), cleaning text, stemming, term frequency-inverse document frequency vectorization, and creation of n-grams. Model performance was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Models were trained and internally validated on University of California San Francisco data using 10-fold cross validation. These models were then externally validated on Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center data.

settingICUs at University of California San Francisco and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. SUBJECTS: Ten thousand patients in the University of California San Francisco training and internal testing dataset and 27,058 patients in the external validation dataset, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsMortality rate at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and University of California San Francisco was 10.9% and 7.4%, respectively. Data are presented as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% CI) for models validated at University of California San Francisco and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for models validated at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Models built and trained on University of California San Francisco data for the prediction of inhospital mortality improved from the raw note text model (AUROC, 0.84; CI, 0.80-0.89) to the term frequency-inverse document frequency model (AUROC, 0.89; CI, 0.85-0.94). When applying the models developed at University of California San Francisco to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center data, there was a similar increase in model performance from raw note text (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: 0.72) to the term frequency-inverse document frequency model (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: 0.83).

conclusionsDifferences in preprocessing strategies for note text impacted model discrimination. Completing a preprocessing pathway including cleaning, stemming, and term frequency-inverse document frequency vectorization resulted in the preprocessing strategy with the greatest improvement in model performance. Further study is needed, with particular emphasis on how to manage author implicit bias present in note text, before natural language processing algorithms are implemented in the clinical setting.

Indexed as

clinical notescritical caremachine learningmortalitynatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID34136824
PMCPMC8202578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.