Search for: All records

Abstract Clinical notes present a wealth of information for applications in the clinical domain, but heterogeneity across clinical institutions and settings presents challenges for their processing. The clinical natural language processing field has made strides in overcoming domain heterogeneity, while pretrained deep learning models present opportunities to transfer knowledge from one task to another. Pretrained models have performed well when transferred to new tasks; however, it is not well understood if these models generalize across differences in institutions and settings within the clinical domain. We explore if institution or setting specific pretraining is necessary for pretrained models to perform well when transferred to new tasks. We find no significant performance difference between models pretrained across institutions and settings, indicating that clinically pretrained models transfer well across such boundaries. Given a clinically pretrained model, clinical natural language processing researchers may forgo the time-consuming pretraining step without a significant performance drop. 

Abstract Background Social and behavioral determinants of health (SBDH) are environmental and behavioral factors that often impede disease management and result in sexually transmitted infections. Despite their importance, SBDH are inconsistently documented in electronic health records (EHRs) and typically collected only in an unstructured format. Evidence suggests that structured data elements present in EHRs can contribute further to identify SBDH in the patient record. Objective Explore the automated inference of both the presence of SBDH documentation and individual SBDH risk factors in patient records. Compare the relative ability of clinical notes and structured EHR data, such as laboratory measurements and diagnoses, to support inference. Methods We attempt to infer the presence of SBDH documentation in patient records, as well as patient status of 11 SBDH, including alcohol abuse, homelessness, and sexual orientation. We compare classification performance when considering clinical notes only, structured data only, and notes and structured data together. We perform an error analysis across several SBDH risk factors. Results Classification models inferring the presence of SBDH documentation achieved good performance (F1 score: 92.7–78.7; F1 considered as the primary evaluation metric). Performance was variable for models inferring patient SBDH risk status; results ranged from F1 = 82.7 for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) status to F1 = 28.5 for intravenous drug use. Error analysis demonstrated that lexical diversity and documentation of historical SBDH status challenge inference of patient SBDH status. Three of five classifiers inferring topic-specific SBDH documentation and 10 of 11 patient SBDH status classifiers achieved highest performance when trained using both clinical notes and structured data. Conclusion Our findings suggest that combining clinical free-text notes and structured data provide the best approach in classifying patient SBDH status. Inferring patient SBDH status is most challenging among SBDH with low prevalence and high lexical diversity.