Procedure prediction from symbolic Electronic Health Records via time intervals analytics

Prediction of medical events, such as clinical procedures, is essential for preventing disease, understanding disease mechanism, and increasing patient quality of care. Although longitudinal clinical data from Electronic Health Records provides opportunities to develop predictive models, the use of these data faces significant challenges. Primarily, while the data are longitudinal and represent thousands of conceptual events having duration, they are also sparse, complicating the application of traditional analysis approaches. Furthermore, the framework presented here takes advantage of the events duration and gaps. International standards for electronic healthcare data represent data elements, such as procedures, conditions, and drug exposures, using eras, or time intervals. Such eras contain both an event and a duration and enable the application of time intervals mining - a relatively new subfield of data mining. In this study, we present Maitreya, a framework for time intervals analytics in longitudinal clinical data. Maitreya discovers frequent time intervals related patterns (TIRPs), which we use as prognostic markers for modelling clinical events. We introduce three novel TIRP metrics that are normalized versions of the horizontal-support, that represents the number of TIRP instances per patient. We evaluate Maitreya on 28 frequent and clinically important procedures, using the three novel TIRP representation metrics in comparison to no temporal repreSentation and previous TIRP5 metrics. We also evaluate the epsilon value that makes Allen's relations more flexible with several settings of 30, 60, 90 and 180 days in comparison to the default zero. For twenty-two of these procedures, the use of temporal patterns as predictors was superior to non-temporal features, and the use of the vertically normalized horizontal support metric to represent TIRPs as features was most effective. The use of the epsilon value with thirty days was slightly better than the zero. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.