Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28387314›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Analysis of free text in electronic health records for identification of cancer patient trajectories.

Kasper Jensen, Cristina Soguero-Ruiz, Karl Oyvind Mikalsen, Rolv-Ole Lindsetmo, Irene Kouskoumvekaki, Mark Girolami, Stein Olav Skrovseth, Knut Magne Augestad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. IRIS: Interpretable Retrieval-Augmented Classification for Long Interspersed Document Sequences.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. CACER: Clinical concept Annotations for Cancer Events and Relations.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kasper JensenNorwegian Centre for E-Health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Norway.
Cristina Soguero-RuizDepartment of Signal Theory and Communications, University Rey Juan Carlos, Spain.
Karl Oyvind MikalsenDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Norway.
Rolv-Ole LindsetmoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital of North Norway, Norway.
Irene KouskoumvekakiDepartment of Systems Biology, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark.
Mark GirolamiDepartment of Statistics, University of Warwick, United Kingdom.
Stein Olav SkrovsethNorwegian Centre for E-Health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Norway.
Knut Magne AugestadDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Akershus University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With an aging patient population and increasing complexity in patient disease trajectories, physicians are often met with complex patient histories from which clinical decisions must be made. Due to the increasing rate of adverse events and hospitals facing financial penalties for readmission, there has never been a greater need to enforce evidence-led medical decision-making using available health care data. In the present work, we studied a cohort of 7,741 patients, of whom 4,080 were diagnosed with cancer, surgically treated at a University Hospital in the years 2004-2012. We have developed a methodology that allows disease trajectories of the cancer patients to be estimated from free text in electronic health records (EHRs). By using these disease trajectories, we predict 80% of patient events ahead in time. By control of confounders from 8326 quantified events, we identified 557 events that constitute high subsequent risks (risk > 20%), including six events for cancer and seven events for metastasis. We believe that the presented methodology and findings could be used to improve clinical decision support and personalize trajectories, thereby decreasing adverse events and optimizing cancer treatment.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDisease ProgressionHealth StatusHumansMorbidityNeoplasmsNorway

Identifiers

PMID28387314
PMCPMC5384191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.