Cargando…
Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods
BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patient cohorts is essential for a wide range of clinical investigations. Automated phenotyping methods that leverage electronic health records (EHRs) represent a fundamentally new approach cohort identification without current labor...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7720570/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33372632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13040-020-00230-x |
_version_ | 1783619876853645312 |
---|---|
author | Thangaraj, Phyllis M. Kummer, Benjamin R. Lorberbaum, Tal Elkind, Mitchell S. V. Tatonetti, Nicholas P. |
author_facet | Thangaraj, Phyllis M. Kummer, Benjamin R. Lorberbaum, Tal Elkind, Mitchell S. V. Tatonetti, Nicholas P. |
author_sort | Thangaraj, Phyllis M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patient cohorts is essential for a wide range of clinical investigations. Automated phenotyping methods that leverage electronic health records (EHRs) represent a fundamentally new approach cohort identification without current laborious and ungeneralizable generation of phenotyping algorithms. We systematically compared and evaluated the ability of machine learning algorithms and case-control combinations to phenotype acute ischemic stroke patients using data from an EHR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using structured patient data from the EHR at a tertiary-care hospital system, we built and evaluated machine learning models to identify patients with AIS based on 75 different case-control and classifier combinations. We then estimated the prevalence of AIS patients across the EHR. Finally, we externally validated the ability of the models to detect AIS patients without AIS diagnosis codes using the UK Biobank. RESULTS: Across all models, we found that the mean AUROC for detecting AIS was 0.963 ± 0.0520 and average precision score 0.790 ± 0.196 with minimal feature processing. Classifiers trained with cases with AIS diagnosis codes and controls with no cerebrovascular disease codes had the best average F1 score (0.832 ± 0.0383). In the external validation, we found that the top probabilities from a model-predicted AIS cohort were significantly enriched for AIS patients without AIS diagnosis codes (60–150 fold over expected). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support machine learning algorithms as a generalizable way to accurately identify AIS patients without using process-intensive manual feature curation. When a set of AIS patients is unavailable, diagnosis codes may be used to train classifier models. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13040-020-00230-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7720570 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77205702020-12-07 Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods Thangaraj, Phyllis M. Kummer, Benjamin R. Lorberbaum, Tal Elkind, Mitchell S. V. Tatonetti, Nicholas P. BioData Min Research BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patient cohorts is essential for a wide range of clinical investigations. Automated phenotyping methods that leverage electronic health records (EHRs) represent a fundamentally new approach cohort identification without current laborious and ungeneralizable generation of phenotyping algorithms. We systematically compared and evaluated the ability of machine learning algorithms and case-control combinations to phenotype acute ischemic stroke patients using data from an EHR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using structured patient data from the EHR at a tertiary-care hospital system, we built and evaluated machine learning models to identify patients with AIS based on 75 different case-control and classifier combinations. We then estimated the prevalence of AIS patients across the EHR. Finally, we externally validated the ability of the models to detect AIS patients without AIS diagnosis codes using the UK Biobank. RESULTS: Across all models, we found that the mean AUROC for detecting AIS was 0.963 ± 0.0520 and average precision score 0.790 ± 0.196 with minimal feature processing. Classifiers trained with cases with AIS diagnosis codes and controls with no cerebrovascular disease codes had the best average F1 score (0.832 ± 0.0383). In the external validation, we found that the top probabilities from a model-predicted AIS cohort were significantly enriched for AIS patients without AIS diagnosis codes (60–150 fold over expected). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support machine learning algorithms as a generalizable way to accurately identify AIS patients without using process-intensive manual feature curation. When a set of AIS patients is unavailable, diagnosis codes may be used to train classifier models. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13040-020-00230-x. BioMed Central 2020-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7720570/ /pubmed/33372632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13040-020-00230-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Thangaraj, Phyllis M. Kummer, Benjamin R. Lorberbaum, Tal Elkind, Mitchell S. V. Tatonetti, Nicholas P. Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods |
title | Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods |
title_full | Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods |
title_fullStr | Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods |
title_short | Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods |
title_sort | comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7720570/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33372632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13040-020-00230-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT thangarajphyllism comparativeanalysisapplicationsandinterpretationofelectronichealthrecordbasedstrokephenotypingmethods AT kummerbenjaminr comparativeanalysisapplicationsandinterpretationofelectronichealthrecordbasedstrokephenotypingmethods AT lorberbaumtal comparativeanalysisapplicationsandinterpretationofelectronichealthrecordbasedstrokephenotypingmethods AT elkindmitchellsv comparativeanalysisapplicationsandinterpretationofelectronichealthrecordbasedstrokephenotypingmethods AT tatonettinicholasp comparativeanalysisapplicationsandinterpretationofelectronichealthrecordbasedstrokephenotypingmethods |