IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i4p503-512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Automatically Annotating Topics in Transcripts of Patient-Provider Interactions via Machine Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Byron C. Wallace
  • M. Barton Laws
  • Kevin Small
  • Ira B. Wilson
  • Thomas A. Trikalinos

Abstract

Background. Annotated patient-provider encounters can provide important insights into clinical communication, ultimately suggesting how it might be improved to effect better health outcomes. But annotating outpatient transcripts with Roter or General Medical Interaction Analysis System (GMIAS) codes is expensive, limiting the scope of such analyses. We propose automatically annotating transcripts of patient-provider interactions with topic codes via machine learning. Methods. We use a conditional random field (CRF) to model utterance topic probabilities. The model accounts for the sequential structure of conversations and the words comprising utterances. We assess predictive performance via 10-fold cross-validation over GMIAS-annotated transcripts of 360 outpatient visits (>230,000 utterances). We then use automated in place of manual annotations to reproduce an analysis of 116 additional visits from a randomized trial that used GMIAS to assess the efficacy of an intervention aimed at improving communication around antiretroviral (ARV) adherence. Results. With respect to 6 topic codes, the CRF achieved a mean pairwise kappa compared with human annotators of 0.49 (range: 0.47–0.53) and a mean overall accuracy of 0.64 (range: 0.62–0.66). With respect to the RCT reanalysis, results using automated annotations agreed with those obtained using manual ones. According to the manual annotations, the median number of ARV-related utterances without and with the intervention was 49.5 versus 76, respectively (paired sign test P = 0.07). When automated annotations were used, the respective numbers were 39 versus 55 ( P = 0.04). While moderately accurate, the predicted annotations are far from perfect. Conversational topics are intermediate outcomes, and their utility is still being researched. Conclusions. This foray into automated topic inference suggests that machine learning methods can classify utterances comprising patient-provider interactions into clinically relevant topics with reasonable accuracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Byron C. Wallace & M. Barton Laws & Kevin Small & Ira B. Wilson & Thomas A. Trikalinos, 2014. "Automatically Annotating Topics in Transcripts of Patient-Provider Interactions via Machine Learning," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(4), pages 503-512, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:4:p:503-512
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13514777
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13514777
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X13514777?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:4:p:503-512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.