BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMR) provide a unique opportunity for efficient, large-scale clinical investigation in psychiatry. However, such studies will require development of tools to define treatment outcome. METHOD: Natural language processing (NLP) was applied to classify notes from 127 504 patients with a billing diagnosis of major depressive disorder, drawn from out-patient psychiatry practices affiliated with multiple, large New England hospitals. Classifications were compared with results using billing data (ICD-9 codes) alone and to a clinical gold standard based on chart review by a panel of senior clinicians. These cross-sectional classifications were then used to define longitudinal treatment outcomes, which were compared with a clinician-rated gold standard. RESULTS: Models incorporating NLP were superior to those relying on billing data alone for classifying current mood state (area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85-0.88 v. 0.54-0.55). When these cross-sectional visits were integrated to define longitudinal outcomes and incorporate treatment data, 15% of the cohort remitted with a single antidepressant treatment, while 13% were identified as failing to remit despite at least two antidepressant trials. Non-remitting patients were more likely to be non-Caucasian (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The application of bioinformatics tools such as NLP should enable accurate and efficient determination of longitudinal outcomes, enabling existing EMR data to be applied to clinical research, including biomarker investigations. Continued development will be required to better address moderators of outcome such as adherence and co-morbidity.
BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMR) provide a unique opportunity for efficient, large-scale clinical investigation in psychiatry. However, such studies will require development of tools to define treatment outcome. METHOD: Natural language processing (NLP) was applied to classify notes from 127 504 patients with a billing diagnosis of major depressive disorder, drawn from out-patient psychiatry practices affiliated with multiple, large New England hospitals. Classifications were compared with results using billing data (ICD-9 codes) alone and to a clinical gold standard based on chart review by a panel of senior clinicians. These cross-sectional classifications were then used to define longitudinal treatment outcomes, which were compared with a clinician-rated gold standard. RESULTS: Models incorporating NLP were superior to those relying on billing data alone for classifying current mood state (area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85-0.88 v. 0.54-0.55). When these cross-sectional visits were integrated to define longitudinal outcomes and incorporate treatment data, 15% of the cohort remitted with a single antidepressant treatment, while 13% were identified as failing to remit despite at least two antidepressant trials. Non-remitting patients were more likely to be non-Caucasian (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The application of bioinformatics tools such as NLP should enable accurate and efficient determination of longitudinal outcomes, enabling existing EMR data to be applied to clinical research, including biomarker investigations. Continued development will be required to better address moderators of outcome such as adherence and co-morbidity.
Authors: David W Bates; R Scott Evans; Harvey Murff; Peter D Stetson; Lisa Pizziferri; George Hripcsak Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: M H Trivedi; A J Rush; H M Ibrahim; T J Carmody; M M Biggs; T Suppes; M L Crismon; K Shores-Wilson; M G Toprac; E B Dennehy; B Witte; T M Kashner Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: George I Papakostas; Timothy Petersen; Joel Pava; Ella Masson; John J Worthington; Jonathan E Alpert; Maruizio Fava; Andrew A Nierenberg Journal: J Nerv Ment Dis Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 2.254
Authors: A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Hicham M Ibrahim; Thomas J Carmody; Bruce Arnow; Daniel N Klein; John C Markowitz; Philip T Ninan; Susan Kornstein; Rachel Manber; Michael E Thase; James H Kocsis; Martin B Keller Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2003-09-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Rachel L Richesson; W Ed Hammond; Meredith Nahm; Douglas Wixted; Gregory E Simon; Jennifer G Robinson; Alan E Bauck; Denise Cifelli; Michelle M Smerek; John Dickerson; Reesa L Laws; Rosemary A Madigan; Shelley A Rusincovitch; Cynthia Kluchar; Robert M Califf Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jennifer A Sinnott; Wei Dai; Katherine P Liao; Stanley Y Shaw; Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan; Vivian S Gainer; Elizabeth W Karlson; Susanne Churchill; Peter Szolovits; Shawn Murphy; Isaac Kohane; Robert Plenge; Tianxi Cai Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2014-07-26 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: George Karystianis; Alejo J Nevado; Chi-Hun Kim; Azad Dehghan; John A Keane; Goran Nenadic Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Patience J Gallagher; Victor Castro; Maurizio Fava; Jeffrey B Weilburg; Shawn N Murphy; Vivian S Gainer; Susanne E Churchill; Isaac S Kohane; Dan V Iosifescu; Jordan W Smoller; Roy H Perlis Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Colm O'Dushlaine; Stephan Ripke; Douglas M Ruderfer; Steven P Hamilton; Maurizio Fava; Dan V Iosifescu; Isaac S Kohane; Susanne E Churchill; Victor M Castro; Caitlin C Clements; Sarah R Blumenthal; Shawn N Murphy; Jordan W Smoller; Roy H Perlis Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2014-01-19 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Sandra D Griffith; Nicolas R Thompson; Jaivir S Rathore; Lara E Jehi; George E Tesar; Irene L Katzan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.147