Natural Language Processing for Automated Classification of Qualitative Data From Interviews of Patients With Cancer

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore the use of novel natural language processing (NLP) methods for classifying unstructured, qualitative textual data from interviews of patients with cancer to identify patient-reported symptoms and impacts on quality of life. METHODS: We tested the ability of 4 NLP models to accurately classify text from interview transcripts as "symptom," "quality of life impact," and "other." Interview data sets from patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (n = 25), biliary tract cancer (BTC) (n = 23), and gastric cancer (n = 24) were used. Models were cross-validated with transcript subsets designated for training, validation, and testing. Multiclass classification performance of the 4 models was evaluated at paragraph and sentence level using the HCC testing data set and analyzed by the one-versus-rest technique quantified by the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) score. RESULTS: NLP models accurately classified multiclass text from patient interviews. The Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers model generally outperformed all other models at paragraph and sentence level. The highest predictive performance of the Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers model was observed using the HCC data set to train and BTC data set to test (mean ROC AUC, 0.940 [SD 0.028]), with similarly high predictive performance using balanced and imbalanced training data sets from BTC and gastric cancer populations. CONCLUSIONS: NLP models were accurate in predicting multiclass classification of text from interviews of patients with cancer, with most surpassing 0.9 ROC AUC at paragraph level. NLP may be a useful tool for scaling up processing of patient interviews in clinical studies and, thus, could serve to facilitate patient input into drug development and improving patient care.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 36 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.