Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37787655›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2023

Large Language Models for Epidemiological Research via Automated Machine Learning: Case Study Using Data From the British National Child Development Study.

Rasmus Wibaek, Gregers Stig Andersen, Christina C Dahm, Daniel R Witte, Adam Hulman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Rasmus WibaekSteno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4989-2084
Gregers Stig AndersenSteno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6125-300X
Christina C DahmDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0481-2893
Daniel R WitteDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0769-2922
Adam HulmanDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3969-1000

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Large language models have had a huge impact on natural language processing (NLP) in recent years. However, their application in epidemiological research is still limited to the analysis of electronic health records and social media data. objectives: To demonstrate the potential of NLP beyond these domains, we aimed to develop prediction models based on texts collected from an epidemiological cohort and compare their performance to classical regression methods. Methods: We used data from the British National Child Development Study, where 10,567 children aged 11 years wrote essays about how they imagined themselves as 25-year-olds. Overall, 15% of the data set was set aside as a test set for performance evaluation. Pretrained language models were fine-tuned using AutoTrain (Hugging Face) to predict current reading comprehension score (range: 0-35) and future BMI and physical activity (active vs inactive) at the age of 33 years. We then compared their predictive performance (accuracy or discrimination) with linear and logistic regression models, including demographic and lifestyle factors of the parents and children from birth to the age of 11 years as predictors. Results: NLP clearly outperformed linear regression when predicting reading comprehension scores (root mean square error: 3.89, 95% CI 3.74-4.05 for NLP vs 4.14, 95% CI 3.98-4.30 and 5.41, 95% CI 5.23-5.58 for regression models with and without general ability score as a predictor, respectively). Predictive performance for physical activity was similarly poor for the 2 methods (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.55, 95% CI 0.52-0.60 for both) but was slightly better than random assignment, whereas linear regression clearly outperformed the NLP approach when predicting BMI (root mean square error: 4.38, 95% CI 4.02-4.74 for NLP vs 3.85, 95% CI 3.54-4.16 for regression). The NLP approach did not perform better than simply assigning the mean BMI from the training set as a predictor. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated the potential of using large language models on text collected from epidemiological studies. The performance of the approach appeared to depend on how directly the topic of the text was related to the outcome. Open-ended questions specifically designed to capture certain health concepts and lived experiences in combination with NLP methods should receive more attention in future epidemiological studies.

Indexed as

child developmentcohort studydeep learningepidemiologylanguage modellarge language modelLLMnatural language processingNLPpredictionprediction modelregression model

Identifiers

PMID37787655
PMCPMC10547934

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.