Cited by 135Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareElectronic Health Records Systems

Language models are an effective representation learning technique for electronic health record data

Open access
Steinberg, Ethan, Jung, Ken, Fries, Jason A., Corbin, Conor K., Pfohl, Stephen R., Shah, Nigam H.·2021·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) has fueled the development of using machine learning to build prediction models for various clinical outcomes. However, this process is often constrained by having a relatively small number of patient records for training the model. We demonstrate that using patient representation schemes inspired from techniques in natural language processing can increase the accuracy of clinical prediction models by transferring information learned from the entire patient population to the task of training a specific model, where only a subset of the population is relevant. Such patient representation schemes enable a 3.5% mean improvement in AUROC on five prediction tasks compared to standard baselines, with the average improvement rising to 19% when only a small number of patient records are available for training the clinical prediction model.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103637

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LSTM models only use structured data and are fine-tuned to forecast specific future events.

    “Similar to other models, LSTM models only use structured data and are finetuned to forecast specific future events.”

    From Foresight-a generative pretrained transformer for modelling of patient timelines using electronic health records: a retrospective modelling study (2024) · cites this paper as [7]

    The data description says this study used structured medical codes and excluded clinical notes and images. Section 2.2.4 says its recurrent models were trained separately to predict specific clinical outcomes, supporting that part of the claim. But those models were GRUs, not LSTMs, and the section describes end-to-end training rather than fine-tuning; the paper does not establish that LSTM models generally use only structured data. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many LLM prompts share overlapping text segments (e.g., system messages, prompt templates, documents) that are reused frequently.

    “Many input prompts have overlapping text segments, such as system messages, prompt templates, and documents provided for context.”

    From Prompt Cache: Modular Attention Reuse for Low-Latency Inference (2023) · cites this paper as Steinberg et al., 2021

    The Introduction and Section 2.3.4 discuss electronic health record data and a model that predicts sequences of medical codes, not LLM input prompts. Searches for overlapping text segments, system messages, prompt templates, and reused prompt prefixes found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [30]30. J. Pennington, R. Socher, C.D. Manning, Glove: Global vectors for word repre- sentation, in: Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2014, pp. 1532-1543, URL http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1162.
  2. [52]52. K. Clark, M.-T. Luong, Q.V. Le, C.D. Manning, ELECTRA: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators, in: International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2020, URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= r1xMH1BtvB.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steinberg, E., Jung, K., Fries, J. A., Corbin, C. K., Pfohl, S. R., & Shah, N. H.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Steinberg, Ethan
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
113
Pages
103637
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3112116031
Cited by
132
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01-LM011369-05)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
electronic health records, language models, representation learning, clinical prediction model, patient representation, transfer learning, limited training data, clinical outcome prediction
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Prognosis, Models, Statistical, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review