ArticleBioData mining2025
A probabilistic approach for building disease phenotypes across electronic health records.
Article in BioData mining, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying the set of patients with a particular disease diagnosis across electronic health records (EHRs), referred to as a phenotype, is an important step in clinical research and applications. However, this task is often challenging, where incomplete data can render definitive classifications impossible. We propose a probabilistic approach to phenotyping based on Bayesian inference and without the need for gold-standard labels. In this paper, we develop multiple heuristic “labeling functions’’ (LFs) for 4 diseases across de-identified EHR data and aggregate their votes through a majority vote approach (MV), a popular open-source approach (Snorkel OSS), and our proposed probabilistic approach (LEVI). We compare the resulting phenotypes to those built using expert-curated logic from the literature, as well as an off-the-shelf natural language processing pipeline (Medspacy), using a curated sample of physician-reviewed labels for evaluation.
resultsPhenotypes built using LFs perform better than off-the-shelf alternatives on classification performance (F1 scores of 0.79–0.82 vs. expert-logic: 0.68, Medspacy: 0.55). Compared to output scores from Snorkel OSS, LEVI provides better probabilistic performance (expected calibration error of 0.04 vs. 0.12), ROC AUC estimates (interval score [loss] of 0.03 vs. 0.10), and operating point selection (equal-cost net benefit of 0.18 vs. 0.15).
conclusionsFor challenging disease states, phenotyping using probabilities rather than binary classification can lead to improved and more personalized downstream decision-making. Probabilistic phenotypes built using LEVI exhibit low calibration error without the need for labels, allowing for better risk-benefit tradeoffs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.