Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38719204›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024

Comparing natural language processing representations of coded disease sequences for prediction in electronic health records.

Thomas Beaney, Sneha Jha, Asem Alaa, Alexander Smith, Jonathan Clarke, Thomas Woodcock, Azeem Majeed, Paul Aylin, Mauricio Barahona

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Thomas BeaneyDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, W12 0BZ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9709-7264
Sneha JhaDepartment of Mathematics, Centre for Mathematics of Precision Healthcare, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Asem AlaaDepartment of Mathematics, Centre for Mathematics of Precision Healthcare, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Alexander SmithDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London, London, W2 1PG, United Kingdom.
Jonathan ClarkeDepartment of Mathematics, Centre for Mathematics of Precision Healthcare, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Thomas WoodcockDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, W12 0BZ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4735-4856
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, W12 0BZ, United Kingdom.
Paul AylinDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, W12 0BZ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4589-1743
Mauricio BarahonaDepartment of Mathematics, Centre for Mathematics of Precision Healthcare, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1089-5675

Funding

Applied Research Collaboration Northwest LondonCentre for Mathematics of Precision HealthcareDepartment of Health and Social CareEPSRC EP/N014529/1Imperial Biomedical Research CentreNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNHSNIHRNIHR 215938/Z/19/ZWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 215938/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNatural language processing (NLP) algorithms are increasingly being applied to obtain unsupervised representations of electronic health record (EHR) data, but their comparative performance at predicting clinical endpoints remains unclear. Our objective was to compare the performance of unsupervised representations of sequences of disease codes generated by bag-of-words versus sequence-based NLP algorithms at predicting clinically relevant outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis cohort study used primary care EHRs from 6 286 233 people with Multiple Long-Term Conditions in England. For each patient, an unsupervised vector representation of their time-ordered sequences of diseases was generated using 2 input strategies (212 disease categories versus 9462 diagnostic codes) and different NLP algorithms (Latent Dirichlet Allocation, doc2vec, and 2 transformer models designed for EHRs). We also developed a transformer architecture, named EHR-BERT, incorporating sociodemographic information. We compared the performance of each of these representations (without fine-tuning) as inputs into a logistic classifier to predict 1-year mortality, healthcare use, and new disease diagnosis.

resultsPatient representations generated by sequence-based algorithms performed consistently better than bag-of-words methods in predicting clinical endpoints, with the highest performance for EHR-BERT across all tasks, although the absolute improvement was small. Representations generated using disease categories perform similarly to those using diagnostic codes as inputs, suggesting models can equally manage smaller or larger vocabularies for prediction of these outcomes. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionPatient representations produced by sequence-based NLP algorithms from sequences of disease codes demonstrate improved predictive content for patient outcomes compared with representations generated by co-occurrence-based algorithms. This suggests transformer models may be useful for generating multi-purpose representations, even without fine-tuning.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectronic Health RecordsNatural Language ProcessingCohort StudiesDiseaseEnglandFemaleHumansMalediseasesLong-Term ConditionsMultiple Long Term Conditionsnatural language processingpredictionrepresentations

Identifiers

PMID38719204
PMCPMC11187492

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.