Key result
Pre-trained language models improve surgical triage accuracy to ~0.74 AUC using clinical text and diagnosis codes.
Why the study?
A heterogeneous surgical patient population requiring varying levels of preoperative anesthesia assessment often leads to inefficiencies and additional resource allocation.
Do pre-trained language models accurately triage surgical patients for preoperative anesthesia evaluation using clinical notes and diagnosis codes?
Do pre-trained language models accurately triage surgical patients for preoperative anesthesia evaluation using clinical notes and diagnosis codes?
Pre-trained language models using both structured diagnosis codes and unstructured clinical notes can assist in triaging surgical patients for preoperative anesthesia evaluation.
May support automated preoperative triage; hypothesis-generating pending prospective multicenter validation.
Purpose Preoperative anesthesia evaluation is a crucial step in ensuring patient safety and optimizing perioperative care. A heterogenous patient population requiring varying levels of assessment often leads to inefficiencies and additional resource allocation. This study proposes using pre-trained language models to assist in triaging the appropriate degree of preoperative anesthesia evaluation for surgical patients. Methods Retrospective institutional data were obtained from surgical patients evaluated at a single center preoperative anesthesia care clinic. The performance of four pre-trained language models (RoBERTa, BERT, ClinicalBERT, and PubMedBERT) in the classification of which patients would be appropriate for a nursing preoperative phone call versus in-person clinician evaluation was assessed using F1-score, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), specificity, sensitivity, and average precision. For each pre-trained language model, three different data input combinations were assessed: (1) diagnosis codes (D); (2) clinical text data (N); and (3) diagnosis codes and clinical text (D + N). The data were split into training (75%) and test set (25%). Results There were 1,761 unique patients, with an average of 12 notes per patient and a total of 46,922 clinical documents, included in the analysis. The AUC range between the four language models was highest in the D + N analyses (0.70 – 0.74), lower in the N analyses (0.58 – 0.73) and lowest in the D analyses (0.57 – 0.62). RoBERTa had the highest score compared to the other language models for all data types. Conclusions Automating integrated analysis using pre-trained language models to aid in preoperative triaging could enhance accuracy and efficiency at scale, reducing manual review and provider burden.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2025) studied this question. Using pre-trained language models improved classification accuracy for triaging surgical patients, achieving an AUC of 0.70-0.74 in integrated analysis with diagnosis codes and clinical text.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: