Predicting Neurological Recovery from Coma Post-cardiac Arrest Using Natural Language Processing
Parker Houston1, Sophie Furlow3, Kevin Bao2, Bo Zhou2, Gerardo Velasquez1, Amanjot Bains4, Kinshuk Basu4, Ori Lieberman2, Claude Hemphill2, M. Brandon Westover5, Marta Fernandes5, Edilberto Amorim2
1School of Medicine, 2Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, 3College of Engineering, University of California, Berkley, 4University of California, Berkley, 5Massachusetts General Hospital
Objective:
Predict neurologic outcomes for comatose patients following cardiac arrest using natural language processing from electronic health records (EHR).
Background:
Clinical notes from the EHR are an abundant and heterogeneous source that captures a patient's clinical course. Machine learning algorithms have the potential to identify patterns from clinical notes that may support prognostication following cardiac arrest.
Design/Methods:
The cohort included comatose adult cardiac arrest patients from two hospitals in San Francisco and the MIMIC-III database. Patient neurologic outcomes were classified as Good (CPC 1-3) or Poor (CPC 4-5) at hospital discharge based on manual review of clinical notes. Clinical notes were reduced to 200 characters following specific headers, concatenated, tokenized, and lemmatized to extract n-gram features. A logistic regression model with L-BFGS optimization was trained on 70% of patients to predict neurological outcomes at discharge. Model performance was evaluated on the remaining 30% of patients using AUROC and AUPRC scores. Performance on the model was then compared between predictions on all notes vs a subset of notes limited to 24 hours after cardiac arrest.
Results:
We gathered 4,988 notes from 357 patients, with 242 of these patients having poor outcomes at discharge. The most common note types included consult notes (33.6%) and nursing notes (55.9%). The model’s AUROC and AUPRC micro-averages were 0.9 and 0.89, respectively. The model predicted 80% of individuals in the poor outcome group (CPC 4-5) and 76% in the good outcome group (CPC 1-3) when using all notes. The model performance decreased 7% when comparing predictions from all notes to 24 hours of notes.
Conclusions:
Our model had excellent performance for discriminating good and poor outcomes but had moderate accuracy. The model changed prediction class over time in 7% of patients, highlighting the dynamic process in the prognostic assessment of neurological recovery by clinicians in cardiac arrest.
Disclaimer: Abstracts were not reviewed by Neurology® and do not reflect the views of Neurology® editors or staff.