Comparing neural language models for medical concept representation and patient trajectory prediction

IF 6.2 2区 医学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-10 DOI:10.1016/j.artmed.2025.103108
Alban Bornet , Dimitrios Proios , Anthony Yazdani , Fernando Jaume-Santero , Guy Haller , Edward Choi , Douglas Teodoro
{"title":"Comparing neural language models for medical concept representation and patient trajectory prediction","authors":"Alban Bornet ,&nbsp;Dimitrios Proios ,&nbsp;Anthony Yazdani ,&nbsp;Fernando Jaume-Santero ,&nbsp;Guy Haller ,&nbsp;Edward Choi ,&nbsp;Douglas Teodoro","doi":"10.1016/j.artmed.2025.103108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Effective representation of medical concepts is crucial for secondary analyses of electronic health records. Neural language models have shown promise in automatically deriving medical concept representations from clinical data. However, the comparative performance of different language models for creating these empirical representations, and the extent to which they encode medical semantics, has not been extensively studied. This study aims to address this gap by evaluating the effectiveness of three popular language models - word2vec, fastText, and GloVe - in creating medical concept embeddings that capture their semantic meaning. By using a large dataset of digital health records, we created patient trajectories and used them to train the language models. We then assessed the ability of the learned embeddings to encode semantics through an explicit comparison with biomedical terminologies, and implicitly by predicting patient outcomes and trajectories with different levels of available information. Our qualitative analysis shows that empirical clusters of embeddings learned by fastText exhibit the highest similarity with theoretical clustering patterns obtained from biomedical terminologies, with a similarity score between empirical and theoretical clusters of 0.88, 0.80, and 0.92 for diagnosis, procedure, and medication codes, respectively. Conversely, for outcome prediction, word2vec and GloVe tend to outperform fastText, with the former achieving AUROC as high as 0.78, 0.62, and 0.85 for length-of-stay, readmission, and mortality prediction, respectively. In predicting medical codes in patient trajectories, GloVe achieves the highest performance for diagnosis and medication codes (AUPRC of 0.45 and of 0.81, respectively) at the highest level of the semantic hierarchy, while fastText outperforms the other models for procedure codes (AUPRC of 0.66). Our study demonstrates that subword information is crucial for learning medical concept representations, but global embedding vectors are better suited for more high-level downstream tasks, such as trajectory prediction. Thus, these models can be harnessed to learn representations that convey clinical meaning, and our insights highlight the potential of using machine learning techniques to semantically encode medical data.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55458,"journal":{"name":"Artificial Intelligence in Medicine","volume":"163 ","pages":"Article 103108"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artificial Intelligence in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0933365725000430","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Effective representation of medical concepts is crucial for secondary analyses of electronic health records. Neural language models have shown promise in automatically deriving medical concept representations from clinical data. However, the comparative performance of different language models for creating these empirical representations, and the extent to which they encode medical semantics, has not been extensively studied. This study aims to address this gap by evaluating the effectiveness of three popular language models - word2vec, fastText, and GloVe - in creating medical concept embeddings that capture their semantic meaning. By using a large dataset of digital health records, we created patient trajectories and used them to train the language models. We then assessed the ability of the learned embeddings to encode semantics through an explicit comparison with biomedical terminologies, and implicitly by predicting patient outcomes and trajectories with different levels of available information. Our qualitative analysis shows that empirical clusters of embeddings learned by fastText exhibit the highest similarity with theoretical clustering patterns obtained from biomedical terminologies, with a similarity score between empirical and theoretical clusters of 0.88, 0.80, and 0.92 for diagnosis, procedure, and medication codes, respectively. Conversely, for outcome prediction, word2vec and GloVe tend to outperform fastText, with the former achieving AUROC as high as 0.78, 0.62, and 0.85 for length-of-stay, readmission, and mortality prediction, respectively. In predicting medical codes in patient trajectories, GloVe achieves the highest performance for diagnosis and medication codes (AUPRC of 0.45 and of 0.81, respectively) at the highest level of the semantic hierarchy, while fastText outperforms the other models for procedure codes (AUPRC of 0.66). Our study demonstrates that subword information is crucial for learning medical concept representations, but global embedding vectors are better suited for more high-level downstream tasks, such as trajectory prediction. Thus, these models can be harnessed to learn representations that convey clinical meaning, and our insights highlight the potential of using machine learning techniques to semantically encode medical data.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较神经语言模型在医学概念表达和患者轨迹预测中的应用
医学概念的有效表示对于电子健康记录的二次分析至关重要。神经语言模型在从临床数据中自动导出医学概念表示方面显示出前景。然而,创建这些经验表征的不同语言模型的比较性能,以及它们编码医学语义的程度,尚未得到广泛研究。本研究旨在通过评估三种流行的语言模型(word2vec、fastText和GloVe)在创建捕获其语义的医学概念嵌入方面的有效性来解决这一差距。通过使用大量的数字健康记录数据集,我们创建了患者轨迹,并用它们来训练语言模型。然后,我们通过与生物医学术语的显式比较来评估学习嵌入编码语义的能力,并通过使用不同级别的可用信息来隐式预测患者的结果和轨迹。我们的定性分析表明,fastText学习的经验聚类与从生物医学术语中获得的理论聚类模式具有最高的相似性,诊断代码、程序代码和药物代码的经验聚类与理论聚类的相似度分别为0.88、0.80和0.92。相反,对于预后预测,word2vec和GloVe往往优于fastText,前者在住院时间、再入院和死亡率预测方面的AUROC分别高达0.78、0.62和0.85。在预测患者轨迹中的医疗代码时,GloVe在语义层次的最高水平上实现了诊断代码和药物代码的最高性能(AUPRC分别为0.45和0.81),而fastText在程序代码方面优于其他模型(AUPRC为0.66)。我们的研究表明,子词信息对于学习医学概念表示至关重要,但全局嵌入向量更适合于更高级的下游任务,如轨迹预测。因此,可以利用这些模型来学习传达临床意义的表示,我们的见解强调了使用机器学习技术对医疗数据进行语义编码的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 工程技术-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
15.00
自引率
2.70%
发文量
143
审稿时长
6.3 months
期刊介绍: Artificial Intelligence in Medicine publishes original articles from a wide variety of interdisciplinary perspectives concerning the theory and practice of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, medically-oriented human biology, and health care. Artificial intelligence in medicine may be characterized as the scientific discipline pertaining to research studies, projects, and applications that aim at supporting decision-based medical tasks through knowledge- and/or data-intensive computer-based solutions that ultimately support and improve the performance of a human care provider.
期刊最新文献
UniStain: A unified and organ-aware virtual H&E staining framework for label-free autofluorescence images Clinical decision support system for detecting right ventricular dysfunction in acute pulmonary embolism: Explainable a new Binary Rule Search (BRS) ensembles and robustness evaluation Multi-scale feature enhancement in multi-task learning for medical image analysis Intelligent sentiment analysis with Arabic patient feedback on healthcare services in King Hussein Cancer Center Regret theory-based clinical efficacy evaluation method with three-way decision
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1