Dataset Information

Identification of social determinants of health using multi-label classification of electronic health record clinical notes

ABSTRACT: Abstract

Objectives

Social determinants of health (SDH), key contributors to health, are rarely systematically measured and collected in the electronic health record (EHR). We investigate how to leverage clinical notes using novel applications of multi-label learning (MLL) to classify SDH in mental health and substance use disorder patients who frequent the emergency department.

Methods and Materials

We labeled a gold-standard corpus of EHR clinical note sentences (N = 4063) with 6 identified SDH-related domains recommended by the Institute of Medicine for inclusion in the EHR. We then trained 5 classification models: linear-Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbors, Random Forest, XGBoost, and bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (BI-LSTM). We adopted 5 common evaluation measures: accuracy, average precision–recall (AP), area under the curve receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC), Hamming loss, and log loss to compare the performance of different methods for MLL classification using the F1 score as the primary evaluation metric.

Results

Our results suggested that, overall, BI-LSTM outperformed the other classification models in terms of AUC-ROC (93.9), AP (0.76), and Hamming loss (0.12). The AUC-ROC values of MLL models of SDH related domains varied between (0.59–1.0). We found that 44.6% of our study population (N = 1119) had at least one positive documentation of SDH.

Discussion and Conclusion

The proposed approach of training an MLL model on an SDH rich data source can produce a high performing classifier using only unstructured clinical notes. We also provide evidence that model performance is associated with lexical diversity by health professionals and the auto-generation of clinical note sentences to document SDH.

SUBMITTER: Stemerman R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8423426 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoor functional status is a key marker of morbidity, yet is not routinely captured in clinical encounters. We developed and evaluated the accuracy of a machine learning algorithm that leveraged electronic health record (EHR) data to provide a scalable process for identification of functional impairment.MethodsWe identified a cohort of patients with an electronically captured screening measure of functional status (Older Americans Resources and Services ADL/IADL) between 2018 and 2020 (N = 6484). Patients were classified using unsupervised learning K means and t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding into normal function (NF), mild to moderate functional impairment (MFI), and severe functional impairment (SFI) states. Using 11 EHR clinical variable domains (832 variable input features), we trained an Extreme Gradient Boosting supervised machine learning algorithm to distinguish functional status states, and measured prediction accuracies. Data were randomly split into training (80%) and test (20%) sets. The SHapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) feature importance analysis was used to list the EHR features in rank order of their contribution to the outcome.ResultsMedian age was 75.3 years, 62% female, 60% White. Patients were classified as 53% NF (n = 3453), 30% MFI (n = 1947), and 17% SFI (n = 1084). Summary of model performance for identifying functional status state (NF, MFI, SFI) was AUROC (area under the receiving operating characteristic curve) 0.92, 0.89, and 0.87, respectively. Age, falls, hospitalization, home health use, labs (e.g., albumin), comorbidities (e.g., dementia, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, chronic pain), and social determinants of health (e.g., alcohol use) were highly ranked features in predicting functional status states.ConclusionA machine learning algorithm run on EHR clinical data has potential utility for differentiating functional status in the clinical setting. Through further validation and refinement, such algorithms can complement traditional screening methods and result in a population-based strategy for identifying patients with poor functional status who need additional health resources.

Project description:ImportanceAs health information transparency increases, patients more often seek their health data. More than 44 million patients in the US can now readily access their ambulatory visit notes online, and the practice is increasing abroad. Few studies have assessed documentation errors that patients identify in their notes and how these may inform patient engagement and safety strategies.ObjectiveTo assess the frequency and types of errors identified by patients who read open ambulatory visit notes.Design, setting, and participantsIn this survey study, a total of 136?815 patients at 3 US health care organizations with open notes, including 79 academic and community ambulatory care practices, received invitations to an online survey from June 5 to October 20, 2017. Patients who had at least 1 ambulatory note and had logged onto the portal at least once in the past 12 months were included. Data analysis was performed from July 3, 2018, to April 27, 2020.ExposuresAccess to ambulatory care open notes through patient portals for up to 7 years (2010-2017).Main outcomes and measuresProportion of patients reporting a mistake and how serious they perceived the mistake to be, factors associated with finding errors characterized by patients as serious, and categories of patient-reported errors.ResultsOf 136?815 patients who received survey invitations, 29?656 (21.7%) responded and 22?889 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.16 [15.96] years; 14 447 [63.1%] female; 18 301 [80.0%] white) read 1 or more notes in the past 12 months and completed error questions. Of these patients, 4830 (21.1%) reported a perceived mistake and 2043 (42.3%) reported that the mistake was serious (somewhat serious: 1563 [32.4%]; very serious: 480 [9.9%]). In multivariable analysis, female patients (relative risk [RR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.72-1.85), more educated patients (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.29-1.48), sicker patients (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.84-1.94), those aged 45 to 64 years (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.06-2.42), those 65 years or older (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.73-2.32), and those who read more than 1 note (2-3 notes: RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.47; ?4 notes: RR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.02-4.73) were more likely to report a mistake that they found to be serious compared with their reference groups. After categorization of patient-reported very serious mistakes, those specifically mentioning the word diagnosis or describing a specific error in current or past diagnoses were most common (98 of 356 [27.5%]), followed by inaccurate medical history (85 of 356 [23.9%]), medications or allergies (50 of 356 [14.0%]), and tests, procedures, or results (30 of 356 [8.4%]). A total of 23 (6.5%) reflected notes reportedly written on the wrong patient. Of 433 very serious errors, 255 (58.9%) included at least 1 perceived error potentially associated with the diagnostic process (eg, history, physical examination, tests, referrals, and communication).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, patients who read ambulatory notes online perceived mistakes, a substantial proportion of which they found to be serious. Older and sicker patients were twice as likely to report a serious error compared with younger and healthier patients, indicating important safety and quality implications. Sharing notes with patients may help engage them to improve record accuracy and health care safety together with practitioners.

Project description:ObjectiveExisting research on social determinants of health (SDoH) predominantly focuses on physician notes and structured data within electronic medical records. This study posits that social work notes are an untapped, potentially rich source for SDoH information. We hypothesize that clinical notes recorded by social workers, whose role is to ameliorate social and economic factors, might provide a complementary information source of data on SDoH compared to physician notes, which primarily concentrate on medical diagnoses and treatments. We aimed to use word frequency analysis and topic modeling to identify prevalent terms and robust topics of discussion within a large cohort of social work notes including both outpatient and in-patient consultations.Materials and methodsWe retrieved a diverse, deidentified corpus of 0.95 million clinical social work notes from 181 644 patients at the University of California, San Francisco. We conducted word frequency analysis related to ICD-10 chapters to identify prevalent terms within the notes. We then applied Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling analysis to characterize this corpus and identify potential topics of discussion, which was further stratified by note types and disease groups.ResultsWord frequency analysis primarily identified medical-related terms associated with specific ICD10 chapters, though it also detected some subtle SDoH terms. In contrast, the LDA topic modeling analysis extracted 11 topics explicitly related to social determinants of health risk factors, such as financial status, abuse history, social support, risk of death, and mental health. The topic modeling approach effectively demonstrated variations between different types of social work notes and across patients with different types of diseases or conditions.DiscussionOur findings highlight LDA topic modeling's effectiveness in extracting SDoH-related themes and capturing variations in social work notes, demonstrating its potential for informing targeted interventions for at-risk populations.ConclusionSocial work notes offer a wealth of unique and valuable information on an individual's SDoH. These notes present consistent and meaningful topics of discussion that can be effectively analyzed and utilized to improve patient care and inform targeted interventions for at-risk populations.

Project description:BackgroundSuicide is an important public health concern in the United States and around the world. There has been significant work examining machine learning approaches to identify and predict intentional self-harm and suicide using existing data sets. With recent advances in computing, deep learning applications in health care are gaining momentum.ObjectiveThis study aimed to leverage the information in clinical notes using deep neural networks (DNNs) to (1) improve the identification of patients treated for intentional self-harm and (2) predict future self-harm events.MethodsWe extracted clinical text notes from electronic health records (EHRs) of 835 patients with International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for intentional self-harm and 1670 matched controls who never had any intentional self-harm ICD codes. The data were divided into training and holdout test sets. We tested a number of algorithms on clinical notes associated with the intentional self-harm codes using the training set, including several traditional bag-of-words-based models and 2 DNN models: a convolutional neural network (CNN) and a long short-term memory model. We also evaluated the predictive performance of the DNNs on a subset of patients who had clinical notes 1 to 6 months before the first intentional self-harm event. Finally, we evaluated the impact of a pretrained model using Word2vec (W2V) on performance.ResultsThe area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the CNN on the phenotyping task, that is, the detection of intentional self-harm in clinical notes concurrent with the events was 0.999, with an F1 score of 0.985. In the predictive task, the CNN achieved the highest performance with an AUC of 0.882 and an F1 score of 0.769. Although pretraining with W2V shortened the DNN training time, it did not improve performance.ConclusionsThe strong performance on the first task, namely, phenotyping based on clinical notes, suggests that such models could be used effectively for surveillance of intentional self-harm in clinical text in an EHR. The modest performance on the predictive task notwithstanding, the results using DNN models on clinical text alone are competitive with other reports in the literature using risk factors from structured EHR data.