1. Extracting social support and social isolation information from clinical psychiatry notes: comparing a rule-based natural language processing system and a large language model.
- Author
-
Patra BG, Lepow LA, Kasi Reddy Jagadeesh Kumar P, Vekaria V, Sharma MM, Adekkanattu P, Fennessy B, Hynes G, Landi I, Sanchez-Ruiz JA, Ryu E, Biernacka JM, Nadkarni GN, Talati A, Weissman M, Olfson M, Mann JJ, Zhang Y, Charney AW, and Pathak J
- Abstract
Objectives: Social support (SS) and social isolation (SI) are social determinants of health (SDOH) associated with psychiatric outcomes. In electronic health records (EHRs), individual-level SS/SI is typically documented in narrative clinical notes rather than as structured coded data. Natural language processing (NLP) algorithms can automate the otherwise labor-intensive process of extraction of such information., Materials and Methods: Psychiatric encounter notes from Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS, n = 300) and Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM, n = 225) were annotated to create a gold-standard corpus. A rule-based system (RBS) involving lexicons and a large language model (LLM) using FLAN-T5-XL were developed to identify mentions of SS and SI and their subcategories (eg, social network, instrumental support, and loneliness)., Results: For extracting SS/SI, the RBS obtained higher macroaveraged F1-scores than the LLM at both MSHS (0.89 versus 0.65) and WCM (0.85 versus 0.82). For extracting the subcategories, the RBS also outperformed the LLM at both MSHS (0.90 versus 0.62) and WCM (0.82 versus 0.81)., Discussion and Conclusion: Unexpectedly, the RBS outperformed the LLMs across all metrics. An intensive review demonstrates that this finding is due to the divergent approach taken by the RBS and LLM. The RBS was designed and refined to follow the same specific rules as the gold-standard annotations. Conversely, the LLM was more inclusive with categorization and conformed to common English-language understanding. Both approaches offer advantages, although additional replication studies are warranted., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF