ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2018
Classifying clinical notes with pain assessment using machine learning.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural language processing with machine learning methods to analyze unstructured patient-reported outcomes derived from electronic health records: A systematic review.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Extraction of Pain Severity and Functional Interference From Clinical Narratives Using Domain-Informed Large Language Models: Protocol for a Development and Validation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Assessment of Pain Intensity Using Deep Learning Models in Non-Communicative Intensive Care Patients.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Pain Assessment in Osteoarthritis: Present Practices and Future Prospects Including the Use of Biomarkers and Wearable Technologies, and AI-Driven Personalized Medicine.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025Review
- The Role and Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Treatment of Chronic Pain.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- Extracting Pain Care Quality Indicators from U.S. Veterans Health Administration Chiropractic Care Using Natural Language Processing.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- Extraction and Quantification of Words Representing Degrees of Diseases: Combining the Fuzzy C-Means Method and Gaussian Membership.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Application Scenarios for Artificial Intelligence in Nursing Care: Rapid Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
- Clinical Text Data in Machine Learning: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Review
- Sensor Technologies to Manage the Physiological Traits of Chronic Pain: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Framework for improving outcome prediction for acute to chronic low back pain transitions.Pain reportsReview
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Pain is a significant public health problem, affecting millions of people in the USA. Evidence has highlighted that patients with chronic pain often suffer from deficits in pain care quality (PCQ) including pain assessment, treatment, and reassessment. Currently, there is no intelligent and reliable approach to identify PCQ indicators inelectronic health records (EHR). Hereby, we used unstructured text narratives in the EHR to derive pain assessment in clinical notes for patients with chronic pain. Our dataset includes patients with documented pain intensity rating ratings > = 4 and initial musculoskeletal diagnoses (MSD) captured by (ICD-9-CM codes) in fiscal year 2011 and a minimal 1 year of follow-up (follow-up period is 3-yr maximum); with complete data on key demographic variables. A total of 92 patients with 1058 notes was used. First, we manually annotated qualifiers and descriptors of pain assessment using the annotation schema that we previously developed. Second, we developed a reliable classifier for indicators of pain assessment in clinical note. Based on our annotation schema, we found variations in documenting the subclasses of pain assessment. In positive notes, providers mostly documented assessment of pain site (67%) and intensity of pain (57%), followed by persistence (32%). In only 27% of positive notes, did providers document a presumed etiology for the pain complaint or diagnosis. Documentation of patients' reports of factors that aggravate pain was only present in 11% of positive notes. Random forest classifier achieved the best performance labeling clinical notes with pain assessment information, compared to other classifiers; 94, 95, 94, and 94% was observed in terms of accuracy, PPV, F1-score, and AUC, respectively. Despite the wide spectrum of research that utilizes machine learning in many clinical applications, none explored using these methods for pain assessment research. In addition, previous studies using large datasets to detect and analyze characteristics of patients with various types of pain have relied exclusively on billing and coded data as the main source of information. This study, in contrast, harnessed unstructured narrative text data from the EHR to detect pain assessment clinical notes. We developed a Random forest classifier to identify clinical notes with pain assessment information. Compared to other classifiers, ours achieved the best results in most of the reported metrics. Graphical abstract Framework for detecting pain assessment in clinical notes.
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.