Sparse Multidimensional Patient Modeling using Auxiliary Confidence Labels

TL;DR

This paper introduces CAMEL, a novel metric learning method that leverages confidence labels to create sparse, interpretable, and accurate patient models from EHR data, reducing labeling costs.

Contribution

CAMEL is a new metric learning approach that incorporates confidence labels, promotes interpretability through sparsity and multidimensional factors, and reduces the need for extensive labeled data.

Findings

CAMEL achieves comparable or better accuracy than existing methods.

Using confidence scores, CAMEL reduces training data requirements to 10%.

The learned metrics identify key factors influencing model decisions.

Abstract

In this work, we focus on the problem of learning a classification model that performs inference on patient Electronic Health Records (EHRs). Often, a large amount of costly expert supervision is required to learn such a model. To reduce this cost, we obtain confidence labels that indicate how sure an expert is in the class labels she provides. If meaningful confidence information can be incorporated into a learning method, fewer patient instances may need to be labeled to learn an accurate model. In addition, while accuracy of predictions is important for any inference model, a model of patients must be interpretable so that clinicians can understand how the model is making decisions. To these ends, we develop a novel metric learning method called Confidence bAsed MEtric Learning (CAMEL) that supports inclusion of confidence labels, but also emphasizes interpretability in three ways. First, our method induces sparsity, thus producing simple models that use only a few features from patient EHRs. Second, CAMEL naturally produces confidence scores that can be taken into consideration when clinicians make treatment decisions. Third, the metrics learned by CAMEL induce multidimensional spaces where each dimension represents a different "factor" that clinicians can use to assess patients. In our experimental evaluation, we show on a real-world clinical data set that our CAMEL methods are able to learn models that are as or more accurate as other methods that use the same supervision. Furthermore, we show that when CAMEL uses confidence scores it is able to learn models as or more accurate as others we tested while using only 10% of the training instances. Finally, we perform qualitative assessments on the metrics learned by CAMEL and show that they identify and clearly articulate important factors in how the model performs inference.