Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Uncovering interpretable potential confounders in electronic medical records

View ORCID ProfileJiaming Zeng, Michael F. Gensheimer, Daniel L. Rubin, Susan Athey, Ross D. Shachter
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.03.21251034
Jiaming Zeng
*Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University. This research was supported by a seed grant from the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jiaming Zeng
  • For correspondence: jiaming@stanford.edu
Michael F. Gensheimer
†School of Medicine, Stanford University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel L. Rubin
†School of Medicine, Stanford University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan Athey
‡Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. Athey thanks the Sloan Foundation and the Office of Naval Research grant ONR N00014-17-1-2131 for generous support.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ross D. Shachter
*Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University. This research was supported by a seed grant from the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

In medicine, randomized clinical trials (RCT) are the gold standard for informing treatment decisions. Observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) is often plagued by selection bias, and expert-selected covariates may not be sufficient to adjust for confounding. We explore how the unstructured clinical text in electronic medical records (EMR) can be used to reduce selection bias and improve medical practice. We develop a method based on natural language processing to uncover interpretable potential confounders from the clinical text. We validate our method by comparing the hazard ratio (HR) from survival analysis with and without the confounders against the results from established RCTs. We apply our method to four study cohorts built from localized prostate and lung cancer datasets from the Stanford Cancer Institute Research Database and show that our method adjusts the HR estimate towards the RCT results. We further confirm that the uncovered terms can be interpreted by an oncologist as potential confounders. This research helps enable more credible causal inference using data from EMRs, offers a transparent way to improve the design of observational CER, and could inform high-stake medical decisions. Our method can also be applied to studies within and beyond medicine to extract important information from observational data to support decisions.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This research is funded by the Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Institute and the Department of Management Science and Engineering.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This research is approved by the Stanford Institutional Review Board.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • We revised the related works section to include more relevant citations for the work.

Data Availability

The data is not available for sharing.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted February 17, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Uncovering interpretable potential confounders in electronic medical records
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Uncovering interpretable potential confounders in electronic medical records
Jiaming Zeng, Michael F. Gensheimer, Daniel L. Rubin, Susan Athey, Ross D. Shachter
medRxiv 2021.02.03.21251034; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.03.21251034
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Uncovering interpretable potential confounders in electronic medical records
Jiaming Zeng, Michael F. Gensheimer, Daniel L. Rubin, Susan Athey, Ross D. Shachter
medRxiv 2021.02.03.21251034; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.03.21251034

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Informatics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (70)
  • Allergy and Immunology (166)
  • Anesthesia (49)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (447)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (80)
  • Dermatology (55)
  • Emergency Medicine (157)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (188)
  • Epidemiology (5196)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (192)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (746)
  • Geriatric Medicine (76)
  • Health Economics (210)
  • Health Informatics (689)
  • Health Policy (350)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (221)
  • Hematology (98)
  • HIV/AIDS (161)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5788)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (353)
  • Medical Education (101)
  • Medical Ethics (25)
  • Nephrology (80)
  • Neurology (754)
  • Nursing (43)
  • Nutrition (129)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (140)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (230)
  • Oncology (473)
  • Ophthalmology (149)
  • Orthopedics (37)
  • Otolaryngology (93)
  • Pain Medicine (39)
  • Palliative Medicine (19)
  • Pathology (138)
  • Pediatrics (223)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (135)
  • Primary Care Research (96)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (851)
  • Public and Global Health (1983)
  • Radiology and Imaging (340)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (154)
  • Respiratory Medicine (282)
  • Rheumatology (93)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (72)
  • Sports Medicine (74)
  • Surgery (107)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (29)
  • Urology (39)