Interpretable phenotyping of Heart Failure patients with Dutch discharge letters
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Objective: Heart failure (HF) patients present with diverse phenotypes affecting treatment and prognosis. This study evaluates models for phenotyping HF patients based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) classes, using structured and unstructured data, assessing performance and interpretability. Materials and Methods: The study analyzes all HF hospitalizations at both Amsterdam UMC hospitals (AMC and VUmc) from 2015 to 2023 (33,105 hospitalizations, 16,334 patients). Data from AMC were used for model training, and from VUmc for external validation. The dataset was unlabelled and included tabular clinical measurements and discharge letters. Silver labels for LVEF classes were generated by combining diagnosis codes, echocardiography results, and textual mentions. Gold labels were manually annotated for 300 patients for testing. Multiple Transformer-based (black-box) and Aug-Linear (white-box) models were trained and compared with baselines on structured and unstructured data. To evaluate interpretability, two clinicians annotated 20 discharge letters by highlighting information they considered relevant for LVEF classification. These were compared to SHAP and LIME explanations from black-box models and the inherent explanations of Aug-Linear models. Results: BERT-based and Aug-Linear models, using discharge letters alone, achieved the highest classification results (AUC=0.84 for BERT, 0.81 for Aug-Linear on external validation), outperforming baselines. Aug-Linear explanations aligned more closely with clinicians' explanations than post-hoc explanations on black-box models. Conclusions: Discharge letters emerged as the most informative source for phenotyping HF patients. Aug-Linear models matched black-box performance while providing clinician-aligned interpretability, supporting their use in transparent clinical decision-making.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2025.
Builds on
16 of 59 references.
References · 16
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,164
- 2019BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text miningcited by 1,947
- 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,206
- 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 636
- 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 599
- 2020RobBERT: a Dutch RoBERTa-based Language Modelcited by 88
- 2022Augmenting Interpretable Models with LLMs during Trainingcited by 38
- 2019Natural Language Processing of Clinical Notes on Chronic Diseases: Systematic Reviewcited by 36
- 2023Language Resources for Dutch Large Language Modellingcited by 11
4 more
- 2019Predicting Heart Failure Readmission from Clinical Notes Using Deep Learningcited by 6
- 2021Explainable Health Risk Predictor with Transformer-based Medicare Claim Encodercited by 4
- 2019Explainable Prediction of Adverse Outcomes Using Clinical Notescited by 2
- 2023Fixing confirmation bias in feature attribution methods via semantic matchcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.