Cargando…

Construction of Cohorts of Similar Patients From Automatic Extraction of Medical Concepts: Phenotype Extraction Study

BACKGROUND: Reliable and interpretable automatic extraction of clinical phenotypes from large electronic medical record databases remains a challenge, especially in a language other than English. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to provide an automated end-to-end extraction of cohorts of similar patients from el...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gérardin, Christel, Mageau, Arthur, Mékinian, Arsène, Tannier, Xavier, Carrat, Fabrice
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9808583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36534446
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/42379
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Reliable and interpretable automatic extraction of clinical phenotypes from large electronic medical record databases remains a challenge, especially in a language other than English. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to provide an automated end-to-end extraction of cohorts of similar patients from electronic health records for systemic diseases. METHODS: Our multistep algorithm includes a named-entity recognition step, a multilabel classification using medical subject headings ontology, and the computation of patient similarity. A selection of cohorts of similar patients on a priori annotated phenotypes was performed. Six phenotypes were selected for their clinical significance: P1, osteoporosis; P2, nephritis in systemic erythematosus lupus; P3, interstitial lung disease in systemic sclerosis; P4, lung infection; P5, obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome; and P6, Takayasu arteritis. We used a training set of 151 clinical notes and an independent validation set of 256 clinical notes, with annotated phenotypes, both extracted from the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris data warehouse. We evaluated the precision of the 3 patients closest to the index patient for each phenotype with precision-at-3 and recall and average precision. RESULTS: For P1-P4, the precision-at-3 ranged from 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.95) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1), the recall ranged from 0.53 (95% CI 0.50-0.55) to 0.83 (95% CI 0.81-0.84), and the average precision ranged from 0.58 (95% CI 0.54-0.62) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.90). P5-P6 phenotypes could not be analyzed due to the limited number of phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Using a method close to clinical reasoning, we built a scalable and interpretable end-to-end algorithm for extracting cohorts of similar patients.