Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39087585›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

Unsupervised Feature Selection to Identify Important ICD-10 and ATC Codes for Machine Learning on a Cohort of Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: Retrospective Study.

Peyman Ghasemi, Joon Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

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

2 authors.

Peyman GhasemiData Intelligence for Health Lab, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1890-0715
Joon LeeData Intelligence for Health Lab, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8593-9321

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The application of machine learning in health care often necessitates the use of hierarchical codes such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) systems. These codes classify diseases and medications, respectively, thereby forming extensive data dimensions. Unsupervised feature selection tackles the "curse of dimensionality" and helps to improve the accuracy and performance of supervised learning models by reducing the number of irrelevant or redundant features and avoiding overfitting. Techniques for unsupervised feature selection, such as filter, wrapper, and embedded methods, are implemented to select the most important features with the most intrinsic information. However, they face challenges due to the sheer volume of ICD and ATC codes and the hierarchical structures of these systems. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare several unsupervised feature selection methods for ICD and ATC code databases of patients with coronary artery disease in different aspects of performance and complexity and select the best set of features representing these patients. Methods: We compared several unsupervised feature selection methods for 2 ICD and 1 ATC code databases of 51,506 patients with coronary artery disease in Alberta, Canada. Specifically, we used the Laplacian score, unsupervised feature selection for multicluster data, autoencoder-inspired unsupervised feature selection, principal feature analysis, and concrete autoencoders with and without ICD or ATC tree weight adjustment to select the 100 best features from over 9000 ICD and 2000 ATC codes. We assessed the selected features based on their ability to reconstruct the initial feature space and predict 90-day mortality following discharge. We also compared the complexity of the selected features by mean code level in the ICD or ATC tree and the interpretability of the features in the mortality prediction task using Shapley analysis. Results: In feature space reconstruction and mortality prediction, the concrete autoencoder-based methods outperformed other techniques. Particularly, a weight-adjusted concrete autoencoder variant demonstrated improved reconstruction accuracy and significant predictive performance enhancement, confirmed by DeLong and McNemar tests (P<.05). Concrete autoencoders preferred more general codes, and they consistently reconstructed all features accurately. Additionally, features selected by weight-adjusted concrete autoencoders yielded higher Shapley values in mortality prediction than most alternatives. Conclusions: This study scrutinized 5 feature selection methods in ICD and ATC code data sets in an unsupervised context. Our findings underscore the superiority of the concrete autoencoder method in selecting salient features that represent the entire data set, offering a potential asset for subsequent machine learning research. We also present a novel weight adjustment approach for the concrete autoencoders specifically tailored for ICD and ATC code data sets to enhance the generalizability and interpretability of the selected features.

Indexed as

Anatomical Therapeutic Chemicalarteryartery diseaseartificial intelligenceATCautoencoder-inspired unsupervised feature selectioncase studyconcrete autoencodercoronary artery diseasedata setICD-10International Classification of DiseasesInternational Classification of Diseases, Tenth RevisioninterpretabilityLaplacian scoremachine learningmortalitymortality predictionpatient cohortprincipal feature analysisunsupervised feature selectionunsupervised feature selection for multicluster data

Identifiers

PMID39087585
PMCPMC11295113

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.