Cited by 1,710Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareElectronic Health Records Systems

Deep patient: An unsupervised representation to predict the future of patients from the electronic health records

Open access
Miotto, Riccardo, Li, Li, Kidd, Brian A., Dudley, Joel T.·2016·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Secondary use of electronic health records (EHRs) promises to advance clinical research and better inform clinical decision making. Challenges in summarizing and representing patient data prevent widespread practice of predictive modeling using EHRs. Here we present a novel unsupervised deep feature learning method to derive a general-purpose patient representation from EHR data that facilitates clinical predictive modeling. In particular, a three-layer stack of denoising autoencoders was used to capture hierarchical regularities and dependencies in the aggregated EHRs of about 700,000 patients from the Mount Sinai data warehouse. The result is a representation we name "deep patient". We evaluated this representation as broadly predictive of health states by assessing the probability of patients to develop various diseases. We performed evaluation using 76,214 test patients comprising 78 diseases from diverse clinical domains and temporal windows. Our results significantly outperformed those achieved using representations based on raw EHR data and alternative feature learning strategies. Prediction performance for severe diabetes, schizophrenia, and various cancers were among the top performing. These findings indicate that deep learning applied to EHRs can derive patient representations that offer improved clinical predictions, and could provide a machine learning framework for augmenting clinical decision systems.

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 · 10.1038/srep26094

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • Many existing XAI tools in Radiation Oncology rely on single-modality data or exclude unstructured data sources such as clinical narratives and imaging.

    “Many existing XAI tools in Radiation Oncology rely on single-modality data24 or exclude unstructured data sources such as clinical narratives and imaging.25,26”

    From X-CART: a multimodal real-world data pipeline for explainable AI-driven patient navigation in radiation oncology (2026) · cites this paper as [25]

    The citation is attached to the claim that tools exclude unstructured sources such as clinical narratives and imaging. In Material and Methods > EHR Processing (page unavailable), this paper says it retained free-text clinical notes and extracted concepts from them—the opposite of excluding clinical narratives. The cited passages do not establish a claim about XAI tools in radiation oncology. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Miotto et al. applied a stacked DAE to multimodal electronic health records data, effectively representing patients in a lower dimensional space and thereby enabling a multitude of clinical predictive modeling such as the onset of disease.

    “Miotto et al. [37] applied a stacked DAE to multimodal electronic health records (EHR) data, effectively representing patients in a lower dimensional space and thereby enabling a multitude of clinical predictive modeling such as the onset of disease.”
  • Among 37 studies learning from structured codes, the frequency of a given code was used in 5 studies.

    “Among 37 studies learning from structured codes, the majority (n = 27) generate one-hot vectors for the input data, and the frequency of a given code is used in 5 studies [11,48,58–60].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miotto, R., Li, L., Kidd, B. A., & Dudley, J. T.
Affiliations
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Corresponding author
Dudley, Joel T.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2016-05-17
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
26094-26094
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2404901863
Cited by
1,710
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 149 · 2025: 173 · 2024: 145 · 2023: 173 · 2022: 168 · 2021: 218 · 2020: 210 · 2019: 213 · 2018: 159 · 2017: 85 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 1
FWCI
129.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001433)
  • National Cancer Institute (U54CA189201)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK098242)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
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, denoising autoencoder, unsupervised feature learning, disease prediction, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Electronic Data Processing, Humans, Prognosis, Biostatistics, 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