Cited by 18Language Development and DisordersMachine Learning in HealthcareMedical Coding and Health Information

Automated Phenotyping Tool for Identifying Developmental Language Disorder Cases in Health Systems Data (APT-DLD): A New Research Algorithm for Deployment in Large-Scale Electronic Health Record Systems

Open access
Walters, Courtney E., Nitin, Rachana, Margulis, Katherine, Boorom, Olivia, Gustavson, Daniel E., Bush, Catherine T., Davis, Lea K., Below, Jennifer E. +3 more·2020·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Abstract

Purpose: Data mining algorithms using electronic health records (EHRs) are useful in large-scale population-wide studies to classify etiology and comorbidities (Casey et al., 2016). Here, we apply this approach to developmental language disorder (DLD), a prevalent communication disorder whose risk factors and epidemiology remain largely undiscovered. Method: We first created a reliable system for manually identifying DLD in EHRs based on speech-language pathologist (SLP) diagnostic expertise. We then developed and validated an automated algorithmic procedure, called, Automated Phenotyping Tool for identifying DLD cases in health systems data (APT-DLD), that classifies a DLD status for patients within EHRs on the basis of ICD (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) codes. APT-DLD was validated in a discovery sample (N= 973) using expert SLP manual phenotype coding as a gold-standard comparison and then applied and further validated in a replication sample of N= 13,652 EHRs. Results: In the discovery sample, the APT-DLD algorithm correctly classified 98% (concordance) of DLD cases in concordance with manually coded records in the training set, indicating that APT-DLD successfully mimics a comprehensive chart review. The output of APT-DLD was also validated in relation to independently conducted SLP clinician coding in a subset of records, with a positive predictive value of 95% of cases correctly classified as DLD. We also applied APT-DLD to the replication sample, where it achieved a positive predictive value of 90% in relation to SLP clinician classification of DLD. Conclusions: APT-DLD is a reliable, valid, and scalable tool for identifying DLD cohorts in EHRs. This new method has promising public health implications for future large-scale epidemiological investigations of DLD and may inform EHR data mining algorithms for other communication disorders. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12753578

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 · 10.1044/2020_jslhr-19-00397

Cites

88 of 88 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?

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

1 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Camarata, S., Lancaster, H., & Kan, D. (2014). Assessment tools: Evaluating our measurements. In Bradham, T. S. & Houston, K. T. (Eds.), Assessing listening and spoken language in children with hearing loss (pp. 19– 43). Plural.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walters, C. E., Nitin, R., Margulis, K., Boorom, O., Gustavson, D. E., Bush, C. T., Davis, L. K., Below, J. E., Cox, N. J., Camarata, S. M., & Gordon, R. L.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Kennedy Krieger Institute (US)
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Gordon, Reyna L.
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Published
2020-09-15
Volume
63
Issue
9
Pages
3019-3035
ISSN
  • 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9102
OpenAlex
W3048790884
Cited by
18
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000445)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R03DC014802, R01DC016977, R03DC015329, K18DC017383, R01DC017175)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD103537)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
specific language impairment, automated phenotyping, electronic health records, ICD codes, communication disorders
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Language Development Disorders, Dimaprit, Data Mining, 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