ArticleJMIR medical informatics2017
Triaging Patient Complaints: Monte Carlo Cross-Validation of Six Machine Learning Classifiers.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Classifying Patient Complaints Using Artificial Intelligence-Powered Large Language Models: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- An Intelligent System for Classifying Patient Complaints Using Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Successful Handling of Patient Complaints Requires Effective Training of Specialists: A Description of the CODE Training Model for Patient Complaint Excellence.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- Use of Machine Learning Tools in Evidence Synthesis of Tobacco Use Among Sexual and Gender Diverse Populations: Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights.BMJ quality & safety · 2020Review
- Clinical Text Data in Machine Learning: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnsolicited patient complaints can be a useful service recovery tool for health care organizations. Some patient complaints contain information that may necessitate further action on the part of the health care organization and/or the health care professional. Current approaches depend on the manual processing of patient complaints, which can be costly, slow, and challenging in terms of scalability.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate automatic patient triage, which can potentially improve response time and provide much-needed scale, thereby enhancing opportunities to encourage physicians to self-regulate.
methodsWe implemented a comparison of several well-known machine learning classifiers to detect whether a complaint was associated with a physician or his/her medical practice. We compared these classifiers using a real-life dataset containing 14,335 patient complaints associated with 768 physicians that was extracted from patient complaints collected by the Patient Advocacy Reporting System developed at Vanderbilt University and associated institutions. We conducted a 10-splits Monte Carlo cross-validation to validate our results.
resultsWe achieved an accuracy of 82% and F-score of 81% in correctly classifying patient complaints with sensitivity and specificity of 0.76 and 0.87, respectively.
conclusionsWe demonstrate that natural language processing methods based on modeling patient complaint text can be effective in identifying those patient complaints requiring physician action.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.