Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods

View ORCID ProfilePhyllis M. Thangaraj, Benjamin R. Kummer, Tal Lorberbaum, Mitchell V. S. Elkind, Nicholas P. Tatonetti
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/565671
Phyllis M. Thangaraj
1Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY
2Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Phyllis M. Thangaraj
Benjamin R. Kummer
3Department of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai, New York, NY
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tal Lorberbaum
1Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY
2Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mitchell V. S. Elkind
4Department of Neurology, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY
5Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas P. Tatonetti
1Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY
2Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nick.tatonetti@columbia.edu
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background and Purpose Accurate identification of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patient cohorts is essential for a wide range of clinical investigations. Automated phenotyping methods that leverage electronic health records (EHRs) represent a fundamentally new approach cohort identification. Unfortunately, the current generation of these algorithms is laborious to develop, poorly generalize between institutions, and rely on incomplete information. We systematically compared and evaluated the ability of several machine learning algorithms and case-control combinations to phenotype acute ischemic stroke patients using data from an EHR.

Methods Using structured patient data from the EHR at a tertiary-care hospital system, we built machine learning models to identify patients with AIS based on 75 different case-control and classifier combinations. We then determined the models’ classification ability for AIS on an internal validation set, and estimated the prevalence of AIS patients across the EHR. Finally, we externally validated the ability of the models to detect self-reported AIS patients without AIS diagnosis codes using the UK Biobank.

Results Across all models, we found that the mean area under the receiver operating curve for detecting AIS was 0.963±0.0520 and average precision score 0.790±0.196 with minimal feature processing. Logistic regression classifiers with L1 penalty gave the best performance. Classifiers trained with cases with AIS diagnosis codes and controls with no cerebrovascular disease diagnosis codes had the best average F1 score (0.832±0.0383). In the external validation, we found that the top probabilities from a model-predicted AIS cohort were significantly enriched for self-reported AIS patients without AIS diagnosis codes (65-250 fold over expected).

Conclusions Our findings support machine learning algorithms as a way to accurately identify AIS patients without relying on diagnosis codes or using process-intensive manual feature curation. When a set of AIS patients is unavailable, diagnosis codes may be used to train classifier models. Our approach is potentially generalizable to other academic institutions and further external validation is needed.

Footnotes

  • Figures revised, Validation study with UK Biobank added

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted June 22, 2019.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods
Phyllis M. Thangaraj, Benjamin R. Kummer, Tal Lorberbaum, Mitchell V. S. Elkind, Nicholas P. Tatonetti
bioRxiv 565671; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/565671
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods
Phyllis M. Thangaraj, Benjamin R. Kummer, Tal Lorberbaum, Mitchell V. S. Elkind, Nicholas P. Tatonetti
bioRxiv 565671; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/565671

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Bioinformatics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4384)
  • Biochemistry (9602)
  • Bioengineering (7100)
  • Bioinformatics (24890)
  • Biophysics (12626)
  • Cancer Biology (9968)
  • Cell Biology (14365)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7966)
  • Ecology (12117)
  • Epidemiology (2067)
  • Evolutionary Biology (15998)
  • Genetics (10933)
  • Genomics (14746)
  • Immunology (9875)
  • Microbiology (23684)
  • Molecular Biology (9486)
  • Neuroscience (50911)
  • Paleontology (370)
  • Pathology (1540)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2684)
  • Physiology (4022)
  • Plant Biology (8669)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1510)
  • Synthetic Biology (2397)
  • Systems Biology (6442)
  • Zoology (1346)