Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2023
The reporting of neuropsychiatric symptoms in electronic health records of individuals with Alzheimer's disease: a natural language processing study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Eikelboom Willem S, Singleton Ellen H, van den Berg Esther, de Boer Casper, Coesmans Michiel, Goudzwaard Jeannette A, Vijverberg Everard G B, Pan Michel, Gouw Cornalijn, Mol Merel O, Gillissen Freek, Fieldhouse Jay L P, Pijnenburg Yolande A L, van der Flier Wiesje M, van Swieten John C, Ossenkoppele Rik, Kors Jan A, Papma Janne M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are prevalent in the early clinical stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) according to proxy-based instruments. Little is known about which NPS clinicians report and whether their judgment aligns with proxy-based instruments. We used natural language processing (NLP) to classify NPS in electronic health records (EHRs) to estimate the reporting of NPS in symptomatic AD at the memory clinic according to clinicians. Next, we compared NPS as reported in EHRs and NPS reported by caregivers on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI).
METHODS: Two academic memory clinic cohorts were used: the Amsterdam UMC (n = 3001) and the Erasmus MC (n = 646). Patients included in these cohorts had MCI, AD dementia, or mixed AD/VaD dementia. Ten trained clinicians annotated 13 types of NPS in a randomly selected training set of n = 500 EHRs from the Amsterdam UMC cohort and in a test set of n = 250 EHRs from the Erasmus MC cohort. For each NPS, a generalized linear classifier was trained and internally and externally validated. Prevalence estimates of NPS were adjusted for the imperfect sensitivity and specificity of each classifier. Intra-individual comparison of the NPS classified in EHRs and NPS reported on the NPI were conducted in a subsample (59%).
RESULTS: Internal validation performance of the classifiers was excellent (AUC range: 0.81-0.91), but external validation performance decreased (AUC range: 0.51-0.93). NPS were prevalent in EHRs from the Amsterdam UMC, especially apathy (adjusted prevalence = 69.4%), anxiety (adjusted prevalence = 53.7%), aberrant motor behavior (adjusted prevalence = 47.5%), irritability (adjusted prevalence = 42.6%), and depression (adjusted prevalence = 38.5%). The ranking of NPS was similar for EHRs from the Erasmus MC, although not all classifiers obtained valid prevalence estimates due to low specificity. In both cohorts, there was minimal agreement between NPS classified in the EHRs and NPS reported on the NPI (all kappa coefficients < 0.28), with substantially more reports of NPS in EHRs than on NPI assessments.
CONCLUSIONS: NLP classifiers performed well in detecting a wide range of NPS in EHRs of patients with symptomatic AD visiting the memory clinic and showed that clinicians frequently reported NPS in these EHRs. Clinicians generally reported more NPS in EHRs than caregivers reported on the NPI.
METHODS: Two academic memory clinic cohorts were used: the Amsterdam UMC (n = 3001) and the Erasmus MC (n = 646). Patients included in these cohorts had MCI, AD dementia, or mixed AD/VaD dementia. Ten trained clinicians annotated 13 types of NPS in a randomly selected training set of n = 500 EHRs from the Amsterdam UMC cohort and in a test set of n = 250 EHRs from the Erasmus MC cohort. For each NPS, a generalized linear classifier was trained and internally and externally validated. Prevalence estimates of NPS were adjusted for the imperfect sensitivity and specificity of each classifier. Intra-individual comparison of the NPS classified in EHRs and NPS reported on the NPI were conducted in a subsample (59%).
RESULTS: Internal validation performance of the classifiers was excellent (AUC range: 0.81-0.91), but external validation performance decreased (AUC range: 0.51-0.93). NPS were prevalent in EHRs from the Amsterdam UMC, especially apathy (adjusted prevalence = 69.4%), anxiety (adjusted prevalence = 53.7%), aberrant motor behavior (adjusted prevalence = 47.5%), irritability (adjusted prevalence = 42.6%), and depression (adjusted prevalence = 38.5%). The ranking of NPS was similar for EHRs from the Erasmus MC, although not all classifiers obtained valid prevalence estimates due to low specificity. In both cohorts, there was minimal agreement between NPS classified in the EHRs and NPS reported on the NPI (all kappa coefficients < 0.28), with substantially more reports of NPS in EHRs than on NPI assessments.
CONCLUSIONS: NLP classifiers performed well in detecting a wide range of NPS in EHRs of patients with symptomatic AD visiting the memory clinic and showed that clinicians frequently reported NPS in these EHRs. Clinicians generally reported more NPS in EHRs than caregivers reported on the NPI.