两级临床新颖性框架为EHR疾病轨迹排序
A Two-Level Clinical Novelty Prioritization Framework for Disease Trajectories Discovered from Longitudinal Electronic Health Records
用MIMIC-IV里挖出的近10万个疾病轨迹,拿bge嵌入去和16万多篇PubMed文献比对,筛出真正新颖且有临床价值的分支,预测误差能少20天。
该研究提出一个两级框架,对从MIMIC-IV v3.1纵向电子病历中发现的99,527个分支motif进行新颖性排序。方法上,每个motif经三次确定性文本化后用BAAI/bge-small-en-v1.5嵌入,并与166,972篇2023年前的PubMed文献以mean top-20余弦距离校准。结果显示仅8.63%的motif存在正向重组,特异性与支持度/GNN可靠性项才是改变临床优先级排序的主因。在frozen catalog-q90高语义子组中,分支增强预测将条件事件时间MAE降低20.1天(95% CI 13.3-27.0),sMAPE降低2.37个百分点。
A Two-Level Clinical Novelty Prioritization Framework for Disease Trajectories Discovered from Longitudinal Electronic Health Records
Graph-based analysis of electronic health records (EHRs) yields disease-trajectory catalogs, but structural support does not establish semantic novelty. We present a two-level framework to prioritize 99,527 branching motifs previously discovered by an upstream patient-disjoint, train-only MIMIC-IV v3.1 pipeline and frozen after validation-based catalog selection. The framework separates path-level and node-to-endpoint semantic sparsity from reliability-adjusted clinical priority. Three deterministic textualizations per motif or node-target pair were embedded with BAAI/bge-small-en-v1.5 and calibrated against 166,972 pre-2023 PubMed references using mean top-20 cosine distance. Positive recombination occurred in 8.63% of motifs and had negligible effect on global ranking, whereas specificity and support/GNN reliability terms changed clinical-priority ordering. Robustness analyses across neighbor counts, templates, encoders, generic-label taxonomies, score settings, PrimeKG, and corrected density-based RND showed that broad ordering was more stable than hard top-k membership. A semantic-dose analysis did not support a monotonic relation between score and forecasting benefit after endpoint and token-count adjustment (1.96 days per SD; 95% CI, -0.75 to 4.68). In the frozen catalog-q90 high-semantic subgroup, branch-enhanced forecasting reduced conditional event-time MAE by 20.1 days (95% CI, 13.3-27.0) and sMAPE by 2.37 percentage points (95% CI, 1.81-2.93), while discrimination and endpoint-ranking differences were inconclusive. Corrected RND showed low tail agreement with the primary score (Spearman rho = 0.430; q90 Jaccard = 0.125) despite a similar aggregate timing association. These findings support representation-aware, uncertainty-aware literature-relative prioritization of discovered trajectories rather than causal discovery or clinician-adjudicated novelty.