Visweswaran, Shyam

Abstract Background Delirium is often underdiagnosed in clinical practice and is not routinely coded for billing. While manual chart review can identify delirium, it is labor-intensive and impractical for large-scale studies. Natural language processing (NLP) can analyze unstructured text in electronic health records (EHRs) to extract meaningful clinical information. Methods To support national integration of NLP for EHR-based delirium identification across different institutions, we launched the Delirium Interest Group within the national Evolve to Next-Gen Accrual to Clinical Trials (ENACT) NLP Working Group. This paper outlines our initial efforts to standardize, evaluate, and translate an NLP-based delirium detection model into the i2b2/ENACT platform. Results Multisite contextual inquiry identified several key challenges, including variations in local screening practices (eg, tools used, documentation frequency, and quality control), the need for harmonized definitions in the context of EHRs, and the complexity of modeling temporal logic. Multisite NLP evaluation revealed variable performance degradation driven by differences in delirium screening practices, clinical documentation patterns and semantics, and note syntactic structures. Conclusion Our work represents an important first step toward enabling scalable and standardized NLP-based delirium detection across institutions. By engaging diverse institutions through the ENACT NLP Working Group, we identified shared challenges and site-specific variations that impact model implementation and performance. Our collaborative approach enabled the development of a more robust framework for delirium identification across heterogeneous EHR systems. Future efforts will build on this foundation to enhance the validity, usability, and translational impact of delirium detection.

Background Machine learning (ML) is pervasive in all fields of research, from automating tasks to complex decision‐making. However, applications in different specialities are variable and generally limited. Like other conditions, the number of studies employing ML in hypertension research is growing rapidly. In this study, we aimed to survey hypertension research using ML, evaluate the reporting quality, and identify barriers to ML's potential to transform hypertension care. Methods and Results The Harmonious Understanding of Machine Learning Analytics Network survey questionnaire was applied to 63 hypertension‐related ML research articles published between January 2019 and September 2021. The most common research topics were blood pressure prediction (38%), hypertension (22%), cardiovascular outcomes (6%), blood pressure variability (5%), treatment response (5%), and real‐time blood pressure estimation (5%). The reporting quality of the articles was variable. Only 46% of articles described the study population or derivation cohort. Most articles (81%) reported at least 1 performance measure, but only 40% presented any measures of calibration. Compliance with ethics, patient privacy, and data security regulations were mentioned in 30 (48%) of the articles. Only 14% used geographically or temporally distinct validation data sets. Algorithmic bias was not addressed in any of the articles, with only 6 of them acknowledging risk of bias. Conclusions Recent ML research on hypertension is limited to exploratory research and has significant shortcomings in reporting quality, model validation, and algorithmic bias. Our analysis identifies areas for improvement that will help pave the way for the realization of the potential of ML in hypertension and facilitate its adoption.

AbstractIntroductionComputable biomedical knowledge artifacts (CBKs) are digital objects conveying biomedical knowledge in machine‐interpretable structures. As more CBKs are produced and their complexity increases, the value obtained from sharing CBKs grows. Mobilizing CBKs and sharing them widely can only be achieved if the CBKs are findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable, and trustable (FAIR+T). To help mobilize CBKs, we describe our efforts to outline metadata categories to make CBKs FAIR+T.MethodsWe examined the literature regarding metadata with the potential to make digital artifacts FAIR+T. We also examined metadata available online today for actual CBKs of 12 different types. With iterative refinement, we came to a consensus on key categories of metadata that, when taken together, can make CBKs FAIR+T. We use subject‐predicate‐object triples to more clearly differentiate metadata categories.ResultsWe defined 13 categories of CBK metadata most relevant to making CBKs FAIR+T. Eleven of these categories (type, domain, purpose, identification, location, CBK‐to‐CBK relationships, technical, authorization and rights management, provenance, evidential basis, and evidence from use metadata) are evident today where CBKs are stored online. Two additional categories (preservation and integrity metadata) were not evident in our examples. We provide a research agenda to guide further study and development of these and other metadata categories.ConclusionA wide variety of metadata elements in various categories is needed to make CBKs FAIR+T. More work is needed to develop a common framework for CBK metadata that can make CBKs FAIR+T for all stakeholders.