利用自然语言处理方法改进电子健康记录中糖尿病视网膜病变及相关病症的识别工作

IF 3.2 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Keith Harrigian MS , Diep Tran MSc , Tina Tang MD , Anthony Gonzales OD , Paul Nagy PhD , Hadi Kharrazi MD, PhD , Mark Dredze PhD , Cindy X. Cai MD, MS
{"title":"利用自然语言处理方法改进电子健康记录中糖尿病视网膜病变及相关病症的识别工作","authors":"Keith Harrigian MS ,&nbsp;Diep Tran MSc ,&nbsp;Tina Tang MD ,&nbsp;Anthony Gonzales OD ,&nbsp;Paul Nagy PhD ,&nbsp;Hadi Kharrazi MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Mark Dredze PhD ,&nbsp;Cindy X. Cai MD, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.xops.2024.100578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To compare the performance of 3 phenotyping methods in identifying diabetic retinopathy (DR) and related clinical conditions.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Three phenotyping methods were used to identify clinical conditions including unspecified DR, nonproliferative DR (NPDR) (mild, moderate, severe), consolidated NPDR (unspecified DR or any NPDR), proliferative DR, diabetic macular edema (DME), vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment (RD) (tractional RD or combined tractional and rhegmatogenous RD), and neovascular glaucoma (NVG). The first method used only International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes (<em>ICD-10 Lookup System</em>). The next 2 methods used a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers with a dense Multilayer Perceptron output layer natural language processing (NLP) framework. The NLP framework was applied either to free-text of provider notes (<em>Text-Only NLP System</em>) or both free-text and ICD-10 diagnosis codes (<em>Text-and-International Classification of Diseases</em> [<em>ICD</em>] <em>NLP System</em>).</p></div><div><h3>Subjects</h3><p>Adults ≥18 years with diabetes mellitus seen at the Wilmer Eye Institute.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We compared the performance of the 3 phenotyping methods in identifying the DR related conditions with gold standard chart review. We also compared the estimated disease prevalence using each method.</p></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><p>Performance of each method was reported as the macro F1 score. The agreement between the methods was calculated using the kappa statistic. Prevalence estimates were also calculated for each method.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 91 097 patients and 692 486 office visits were included in the study. Compared with the gold standard, the <em>Text-and-ICD NLP System</em> had the highest F1 score for most clinical conditions (range 0.39–0.64). The agreement between the <em>ICD-10 Lookup System</em> and <em>Text-Only NLP System</em> varied (kappa of 0.21–0.81). The prevalence of DR and related conditions ranged from 1.1% for NVG to 17.9% for DME (using the <em>Text-and-ICD NLP System</em>).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The prevalence of DR and related conditions varied significantly depending on the methodology of identifying cases. The best performing phenotyping method was the <em>Text-and-ICD NLP System</em> that used information in both diagnosis codes as well as free-text notes.</p></div><div><h3>Financial Disclosures</h3><p>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74363,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology science","volume":"4 6","pages":"Article 100578"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666914524001143/pdfft?md5=aee0aca9014224fef1aa919db24f5c88&pid=1-s2.0-S2666914524001143-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving the Identification of Diabetic Retinopathy and Related Conditions in the Electronic Health Record Using Natural Language Processing Methods\",\"authors\":\"Keith Harrigian MS ,&nbsp;Diep Tran MSc ,&nbsp;Tina Tang MD ,&nbsp;Anthony Gonzales OD ,&nbsp;Paul Nagy PhD ,&nbsp;Hadi Kharrazi MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Mark Dredze PhD ,&nbsp;Cindy X. Cai MD, MS\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.xops.2024.100578\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To compare the performance of 3 phenotyping methods in identifying diabetic retinopathy (DR) and related clinical conditions.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Three phenotyping methods were used to identify clinical conditions including unspecified DR, nonproliferative DR (NPDR) (mild, moderate, severe), consolidated NPDR (unspecified DR or any NPDR), proliferative DR, diabetic macular edema (DME), vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment (RD) (tractional RD or combined tractional and rhegmatogenous RD), and neovascular glaucoma (NVG). The first method used only International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes (<em>ICD-10 Lookup System</em>). The next 2 methods used a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers with a dense Multilayer Perceptron output layer natural language processing (NLP) framework. The NLP framework was applied either to free-text of provider notes (<em>Text-Only NLP System</em>) or both free-text and ICD-10 diagnosis codes (<em>Text-and-International Classification of Diseases</em> [<em>ICD</em>] <em>NLP System</em>).</p></div><div><h3>Subjects</h3><p>Adults ≥18 years with diabetes mellitus seen at the Wilmer Eye Institute.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We compared the performance of the 3 phenotyping methods in identifying the DR related conditions with gold standard chart review. We also compared the estimated disease prevalence using each method.</p></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><p>Performance of each method was reported as the macro F1 score. The agreement between the methods was calculated using the kappa statistic. Prevalence estimates were also calculated for each method.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 91 097 patients and 692 486 office visits were included in the study. Compared with the gold standard, the <em>Text-and-ICD NLP System</em> had the highest F1 score for most clinical conditions (range 0.39–0.64). The agreement between the <em>ICD-10 Lookup System</em> and <em>Text-Only NLP System</em> varied (kappa of 0.21–0.81). The prevalence of DR and related conditions ranged from 1.1% for NVG to 17.9% for DME (using the <em>Text-and-ICD NLP System</em>).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The prevalence of DR and related conditions varied significantly depending on the methodology of identifying cases. The best performing phenotyping method was the <em>Text-and-ICD NLP System</em> that used information in both diagnosis codes as well as free-text notes.</p></div><div><h3>Financial Disclosures</h3><p>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74363,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmology science\",\"volume\":\"4 6\",\"pages\":\"Article 100578\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666914524001143/pdfft?md5=aee0aca9014224fef1aa919db24f5c88&pid=1-s2.0-S2666914524001143-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmology science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666914524001143\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666914524001143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较三种表型方法在识别糖尿病视网膜病变(DR)及相关临床症状方面的性能。设计使用三种表型方法来识别临床病症,包括未指定的 DR、非增殖性 DR (NPDR)(轻度、中度、重度)、合并的 NPDR(未指定的 DR 或任何 NPDR)、增殖性 DR、糖尿病黄斑水肿 (DME)、玻璃体出血、视网膜脱离 (RD)(牵引性 RD 或牵引性和流变性联合 RD)和新生血管性青光眼 (NVG)。第一种方法仅使用国际疾病分类第十版(ICD-10)诊断代码(ICD-10 查询系统)。接下来的两种方法使用了变压器双向编码器表示法和密集多层感知器输出层自然语言处理(NLP)框架。方法我们比较了 3 种表型分析方法与金标准病历审查在识别糖尿病相关疾病方面的性能。我们还比较了使用每种方法估计的疾病患病率。主要结果测量每种方法的性能以宏观 F1 分数报告。使用卡帕统计量计算各种方法之间的一致性。研究共纳入了 91 097 名患者和 692 486 次诊疗。与金标准相比,文本和 ICD NLP 系统在大多数临床情况下的 F1 分数最高(范围为 0.39-0.64)。ICD-10 查询系统和纯文本 NLP 系统之间的一致性各不相同(kappa 为 0.21-0.81)。DR及相关疾病的患病率从NVG的1.1%到DME的17.9%不等(使用文本和ICD NLP系统)。表现最好的表型鉴定方法是Text-and-ICD NLP系统,该系统使用了诊断代码和自由文本注释中的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving the Identification of Diabetic Retinopathy and Related Conditions in the Electronic Health Record Using Natural Language Processing Methods

Purpose

To compare the performance of 3 phenotyping methods in identifying diabetic retinopathy (DR) and related clinical conditions.

Design

Three phenotyping methods were used to identify clinical conditions including unspecified DR, nonproliferative DR (NPDR) (mild, moderate, severe), consolidated NPDR (unspecified DR or any NPDR), proliferative DR, diabetic macular edema (DME), vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment (RD) (tractional RD or combined tractional and rhegmatogenous RD), and neovascular glaucoma (NVG). The first method used only International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes (ICD-10 Lookup System). The next 2 methods used a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers with a dense Multilayer Perceptron output layer natural language processing (NLP) framework. The NLP framework was applied either to free-text of provider notes (Text-Only NLP System) or both free-text and ICD-10 diagnosis codes (Text-and-International Classification of Diseases [ICD] NLP System).

Subjects

Adults ≥18 years with diabetes mellitus seen at the Wilmer Eye Institute.

Methods

We compared the performance of the 3 phenotyping methods in identifying the DR related conditions with gold standard chart review. We also compared the estimated disease prevalence using each method.

Main Outcome Measures

Performance of each method was reported as the macro F1 score. The agreement between the methods was calculated using the kappa statistic. Prevalence estimates were also calculated for each method.

Results

A total of 91 097 patients and 692 486 office visits were included in the study. Compared with the gold standard, the Text-and-ICD NLP System had the highest F1 score for most clinical conditions (range 0.39–0.64). The agreement between the ICD-10 Lookup System and Text-Only NLP System varied (kappa of 0.21–0.81). The prevalence of DR and related conditions ranged from 1.1% for NVG to 17.9% for DME (using the Text-and-ICD NLP System).

Conclusions

The prevalence of DR and related conditions varied significantly depending on the methodology of identifying cases. The best performing phenotyping method was the Text-and-ICD NLP System that used information in both diagnosis codes as well as free-text notes.

Financial Disclosures

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ophthalmology science
Ophthalmology science Ophthalmology
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
89 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信