Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30646240›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2018

Comparison of 2 Natural Language Processing Methods for Identification of Bleeding Among Critically Ill Patients.

Maxwell Taggart, Wendy W Chapman, Benjamin A Steinberg, Shane Ruckel, Arianna Pregenzer-Wenzler, Yishuai Du, Jeffrey Ferraro, Brian T Bucher, Donald M Lloyd-Jones, Matthew T Rondina and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Natural Language Processing andJMIR medical informatics · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Association of delayed asthma diagnosis with asthma exacerbations in children.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Evaluating Large Language Models in Extracting Cognitive Exam Dates and Scores.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Natural Language Processing in Nephrology.Advances in chronic kidney disease · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Deep learning detects and visualizes bleeding events in electronic health records.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maxwell TaggartDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Wendy W ChapmanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Benjamin A SteinbergDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Shane RuckelDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Arianna Pregenzer-WenzlerDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Yishuai DuDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Jeffrey FerraroDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Brian T BucherDivision of Pediatric Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Donald M Lloyd-JonesDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Matthew T RondinaDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Rashmee U ShahDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
University of Utah · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

Utah Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR002538 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI HESS, RACHEL, MAJERSIK, JENNIFER JUHL · 2018 to 2022
$26.0M
Improving Cardiovascular Drug Safety With Automated Bleeding ClassificationK08HL136850 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI SHAH, RASHMEE U. · 2017 to 2020
$652k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002538NHLBI NIH HHS K08 HL136850
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: To improve patient safety, health care systems need reliable methods to detect adverse events in large patient populations. Events are often described in clinical notes, rather than structured data, which make them difficult to identify on a large scale. Objective: To develop and compare 2 natural language processing methods, a rules-based approach and a machine learning (ML) approach, for identifying bleeding events in clinical notes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study used deidentified notes from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care, which spans 2001 to 2012. A training set of 990 notes and a test set of 660 notes were randomly selected. Physicians classified each note as present or absent for a clinically relevant bleeding event during the hospitalization. A bleeding dictionary was developed for the rules-based approach; bleeding mentions were then aggregated to arrive at a classification for each note. Three ML models (support vector machine, extra trees, and convolutional neural network) were developed and trained using the 990-note training set. Another instance of each ML model was also trained on a sample of 450 notes, with equal numbers of bleeding-present and bleeding-absent notes. The notes were represented using term frequency-inverse document frequency vectors and global vectors for word representation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for each model. Following training, the models were tested on the test set and sensitivities were compared using a McNemar test. Results: The 990-note training set represented 769 patients (296 [38.5%] female; mean [SD] age, 67.42 [14.7] years). The 660-note test set represented 527 patients (211 [40.0%] female; mean [SD] age, 67.86 [14.7] years). Bleeding was present in 146 notes (22.1%). The extra trees down-sampled model and rules-based approaches were similarly sensitive (93.8% vs 91.1%; difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, -3.8% to 7.9%; P = .44). The positive predictive value for the extra trees model, however, was 48.6%. The rules-based model had the best performance overall, with 84.6% specificity, 62.7% positive predictive value, and 97.1% negative predictive value. Conclusions and Relevance: Bleeding is a common complication in health care, and these results demonstrate an automated and scalable detection method. The rules-based natural language processing approach, compared with ML, had the best performance in identifying bleeding, with high sensitivity and negative predictive value.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsNatural Language ProcessingAgedAged, 80 and overCritical IllnessFemaleHemorrhageHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificitySupport Vector Machine

Identifiers

PMID30646240
PMCPMC6324448
OpenAlexW2897815444

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.