Cited by 71Machine Learning in HealthcareTopic ModelingComputational and Text Analysis Methods

Redundancy-Aware Topic Modeling for Patient Record Notes

Open access
Cohen, Raphael, Aviram, Iddo, Elhadad, Michael, Elhadad, Noémie·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

The clinical notes in a given patient record contain much redundancy, in large part due to clinicians' documentation habit of copying from previous notes in the record and pasting into a new note. Previous work has shown that this redundancy has a negative impact on the quality of text mining and topic modeling in particular. In this paper we describe a novel variant of Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling, Red-LDA, which takes into account the inherent redundancy of patient records when modeling content of clinical notes. To assess the value of Red-LDA, we experiment with three baselines and our novel redundancy-aware topic modeling method: given a large collection of patient records, (i) apply vanilla LDA to all documents in all input records; (ii) identify and remove all redundancy by chosing a single representative document for each record as input to LDA; (iii) identify and remove all redundant paragraphs in each record, leaving partial, non-redundant documents as input to LDA; and (iv) apply Red-LDA to all documents in all input records. Both quantitative evaluation carried out through log-likelihood on held-out data and topic coherence of produced topics and qualitative assessment of topics carried out by physicians show that Red-LDA produces superior models to all three baseline strategies. This research contributes to the emerging field of understanding the characteristics of the electronic health record and how to account for them in the framework of data mining. The code for the two redundancy-elimination baselines and Red-LDA is made publicly available to the community.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0087555

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • The over representation of certain SDoH factors because of duplication impairs the training and evaluation of machine learning and deep learning models.

    “The over representation of certain SDoH factors because of the duplication impairs the training and evaluation of machine learning and deep learning models81,82.”

    From Social determinants of health extraction from clinical notes across institutions using large language models (2025) · cites this paper as [81]

    The Introduction’s Problem Analysis says copy-pasted words can receive inflated topic weights and cause an LDA model to overfit. The Discussion also reports that redundancy harms topic-model quality. The paper does not address SDoH factors specifically or establish an effect on the training and evaluation of machine-learning and deep-learning models generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

14 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. [4]Blei D, Ng A, Jordan M (2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3: 993– 1022.
  2. [10]Walker D, Lund W, Ringger E (2010) Evaluating models of latent document semantics in the presence of OCR errors. In: Proc. EMNLP. 240–250.
  3. [11]Wallach H, Murray I, Salakhutdinov R, Mimno D (2009) Evaluation methods for topic models. In: Proc. ICML: 1105– 1112.
  4. [12]Mimno D, Wallach HM, Talley E, Leenders M, McCallum A (2011) Optimizing semantic coherence in topic models. In: Proc. EMNLP. 262–272.
  5. [13]Arnold C, El-Saden S, Bui A, Taira R (2010) Clinical case-based retrieval using latent topic analysis. In: Proc. AMIA. volume 2010, p. 26. PMC3041464 21346934
  6. [14]Salleb-Aouissi A, Radeva A, Passonneau R, Tomar A, Waltz D, et al.. (2011) Diving into a large corpus of pediatric notes. In: Proc. ICMLWorkshop on Learning from Unstructured Clinical Text.
  7. [15]Saria S, Koller D, Penn A (2010) Learning individual and population level traits from clinical temporal data. In: Proc. NIPS Predictive Models in Personalized Medicine Workshop.
  8. [16]Perotte A, Bartlett N, Elhadad N, Wood F (2011) Hierarchically supervised latent Dirichlet allocation. In: Proc. NIPS. 2609–2617.
  9. [17]Lehman LW, Saeed M, Long W, Lee J, Mark R (2012) Risk stratification of ICU patients using topic models inferred from unstructured progress notes. In: Proc. AMIA. 505–511. PMC3540429 23304322
  10. [21]Crain S, Yang S, Zha H, Jiao Y (2010) Dialect topic modeling for improved consumer medical search. In: Proc. AMIA. 132–136. PMC3041409 21346955
  11. [23]Halpern Y, Horng S, Nathanson L, Shapiro N, Sontag D (2012) A comparison of dimensionality reduction techniques for unstructured clinical text. In: Proc. ICML Workshop on Clinical Data Analysis.
  12. [24]Zanzotto F, Pennacchiotti M, Tsioutsiouliklis K (2011) Linguistic redundancy in Twitter. In: Proc. EMNLP. 659–669.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cohen, R., Aviram, I., Elhadad, M., & Elhadad, N.
Affiliations
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Cohen, Raphael
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-02-13
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
e87555
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001322210
Cited by
71
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8
FWCI
5.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM010027)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
Keywords
latent Dirichlet allocation, clinical notes, medical records, electronic health records, redundancy elimination, topic coherence, clinical text mining
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Documentation, Humans, Models, Statistical, Health Records, Personal, 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