Key result
AI phenotyping of unstructured EHR outperforms structured queries, achieving ~94% F1 score for HF concepts.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to quantitatively evaluate the quality of data underlying real-world evidence in heart failure.
Does an advanced AI-based approach improve the accuracy of heart failure phenotyping from EHR data compared to a traditional structured query approach?
Observational (n=1,155)
No
Does an advanced AI-based approach improve the accuracy of heart failure phenotyping from EHR data compared to a traditional structured query approach?
Absolute Event Rate: 94.1% vs 49%
p-value: p=<0.001
Advanced AI-based approaches applied to unstructured EHR data significantly improve the accuracy of heart failure phenotyping compared to traditional structured data queries.
May enhance EHR-based HF phenotyping accuracy; leaves open prospective validation before clinical or research adoption.
Objective Quantitatively evaluate the quality of data underlying real-world evidence (RWE) in heart failure (HF). Design Retrospective comparison of accuracy in identifying patients with HF and phenotypic information was made using traditional (ie, structured query language applied to structured electronic health record (EHR) data) and advanced (ie, artificial intelligence (AI) applied to unstructured EHR data) RWE approaches. The performance of each approach was measured by the harmonic mean of precision and recall (F 1 score) using manual annotation of medical records as a reference standard. Setting EHR data from a large academic healthcare system in North America between 2015 and 2019, with an expected catchment of approximately 5 00 000 patients. Population 4288 encounters for 1155 patients aged 18–85 years, with 472 patients identified as having HF. Outcome measures HF and associated concepts, such as comorbidities, left ventricular ejection fraction, and selected medications. Results The average F 1 scores across 19 HF-specific concepts were 49.0% and 94.1% for the traditional and advanced approaches, respectively (p<0.001 for all concepts with available data). The absolute difference in F 1 score between approaches was 45.1% (98.1% relative increase in F 1 score using the advanced approach). The advanced approach achieved superior F 1 scores for HF presence, phenotype and associated comorbidities. Some phenotypes, such as HF with preserved ejection fraction, revealed dramatic differences in extraction accuracy based on technology applied, with a 4.9% F 1 score when using natural language processing (NLP) alone and a 91.0% F 1 score when using NLP plus AI-based inference. Conclusions A traditional RWE generation approach resulted in low data quality in patients with HF. While an advanced approach demonstrated high accuracy, the results varied dramatically based on extraction techniques. For future studies, advanced approaches and accuracy measurement may be required to ensure data are fit-for-purpose.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garan et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=1,155). Advanced artificial intelligence-based phenotyping vs. Traditional structured query language phenotyping was evaluated on Average F1 score across 19 HF-specific concepts (p=<0.001). Advanced AI-based phenotyping of unstructured EHR data yielded a superior average F1 score for heart failure concepts compared to traditional structured queries (94.1% vs 49.0%, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: