ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meeting Abstracts
    • All Meetings
    • PRSYM 2026
    • ACR Convergence 2025
    • Download Abstract Supplements
  • Keyword Index
  • My Favorites
    • View & print my favorites
  • Search

Home » Meeting Abstracts » ACR/ARP Annual Meeting 2019

Abstract Number: 2074

Automated Diagnosis Extraction from Electronic Medical Records with Machine Learning Classifiers

Tjardo Maarseveen1, Thomas Huizinga 1, Marcel J.T. Reinders 1, Erik van den Akker 1 and Rachel Knevel 1, 1Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands

Share on X (Twitter) Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on Email
Print

Meeting: ACR/ARP Annual Meeting 2019

Keywords: big data and data analysis, Bioinformatics, diagnosis, Electronic Health Record

Session Information

Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Title: Epidemiology & Public Health Poster III: OA, Gout, & Other Diseases

Session Type: Poster Session (Tuesday)

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: The use of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) for research purposes has led to an increasing interest in Natural Language Processing (NLP) for text classification. Little preparation is required as the NLP-methods are capable of automatically interpreting the data. Classification is often accomplished with naïve word-matching. An alternative to word-matching is the usage of a Machine Learning (ML) classifier. Rather than providing a set of patterns, an ML-model only requires the outcome and then formulates the patterns itself. The purpose of this study is to build a reliable classifier with machine learning techniques that can identify the Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) cases based on the provided EMR entry.

Methods: Data was acquired from the HiX-EMR database consisting of 2,771 patients that visited the rheumatology outpatient clinic from the Leiden University Medical Centre between 2007 and 2018. This database featured a total of 38,216 entries. The first entry (if available) was selected per patient for annotation, resulting in a total of 1,361 entries. The annotated sample was then randomly split into an equally sized training and test set. Both sets were preprocessed and then classified with the following methods: naïve word-matching, Naive Bayes (NB), Decision Tree, Gradient Boosting (GB), Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines (SVM), see table 1 for more information. Default Scikit-learn implementations2 were used to create the models, except for the word-matching model of which the classification is based on the presence of RA-defining strings like ‘Reumatoide Artritis’.

Finally, the performance of the models was evaluated with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis via the pROC package3. The Delong test was used to assess the 95% confidence intervals (CI) and to determine the difference between the performance of the word-matching method and the ML-models.

Results: The naïve word-matching approach resulted in a high area under the curve (AUC=0.76). Likewise, the ML-models resulted in relatively high AUC-scores as well: NB=0.83, SVM=0.91, Neural Networks=0.92 and the GB-method with a 0.94. The Decision Tree showed the worst performance with an AUC-ROC of only 0.51. In comparison to the naïve word-matching ROC-curve, all the ML-models showed a significant difference: Decision Tree (p< 2.2e-16; CI=0.49-0.56), NB (p= 4.4e-3; CI=0.80-0.86), Neural Networks (p< 2.2e-16; CI=0.90-0.94), GB (p< 2.2e-16; CI=0.92-0.96) and the SVM (p=4.0e-16; CI=0.89-0.93).

Conclusion: The Gradient Boosting, Neural Networks, SVM and Naïve Bayes models all showcased a significantly better performance than the Naïve word-matching algorithm, which establishes these ML-methods as an efficient approach for data extraction from EMR.


Disclosure: T. Maarseveen, None; T. Huizinga, Abblynx, 2, 5, 8, Abbott, 2, 5, 8, Biotest AG, 2, 5, 8, Boehringer Ingelheim, 2, 5, 8, Boeringher Ingelheim, 2, 5, 8, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, 5, 8, Crescendo Bioscience, 2, 5, 8, Eli Lilly, 2, 5, 8, Epirus, 2, 5, 8, Galapagos, 2, 5, 8, Janssen, 2, 5, 8, Merck, 2, 5, 8, Novartis, 2, 5, 8, Nycomed, 2, 5, 8, Pfizer, 2, 5, 8, Roche, 2, 5, 8, Sanofi, 2, 5, Sanofi-Aventis, 2, 5, 8, Takeda, 2, 5, 8, UCB, 2, 5, 8, Zydus, 2, 5, 8; M. Reinders, None; E. van den Akker, None; R. Knevel, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Maarseveen T, Huizinga T, Reinders M, van den Akker E, Knevel R. Automated Diagnosis Extraction from Electronic Medical Records with Machine Learning Classifiers [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/automated-diagnosis-extraction-from-electronic-medical-records-with-machine-learning-classifiers/. Accessed .

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/automated-diagnosis-extraction-from-electronic-medical-records-with-machine-learning-classifiers/

My Favorites

Save and print abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract (must have cookies enabled in browser). See saved favorites.

Abstract Policies

  • ACR Convergence Abstract Embargo Policies
  • ACR Convergence Abstract Permissions & Reprints
  • PRSYM Abstract Policies

ACR Convergence. Where Rheumatology Meets

ACR Convergence 2026

Join us November 6-11 in Orlando, Florida.
See Registration Information

  • Contact ACR
  • Privacy Policy
  • ACR Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2026 American College of Rheumatology