Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31532490›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2019

Detecting conversation topics in primary care office visits from transcripts of patient-provider interactions.

Jihyun Park, Dimitrios Kotzias, Patty Kuo, Robert L Logan Iv, Kritzia Merced, Sameer Singh, Michael Tanana, Efi Karra Taniskidou, Jennifer Elston Lafata, David C Atkins and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

13 authors.

Jihyun ParkDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Dimitrios KotziasDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Patty KuoDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Robert L Logan IvDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Kritzia MercedDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Sameer SinghDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Michael TananaSocial Research Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Efi Karra TaniskidouDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Jennifer Elston LafataDivision of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
David C AtkinsDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Ming Tai-SealeDepartment of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Zac E ImelDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Padhraic SmythDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.

Funding

University of California Health Participation in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)UL1TR001414 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M, VILAIN, ERIC J. · 2015 to 2023
$35.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001414
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAmid electronic health records, laboratory tests, and other technology, office-based patient and provider communication is still the heart of primary medical care. Patients typically present multiple complaints, requiring physicians to decide how to balance competing demands. How this time is allocated has implications for patient satisfaction, payments, and quality of care. We investigate the effectiveness of machine learning methods for automated annotation of medical topics in patient-provider dialog transcripts. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe used dialog transcripts from 279 primary care visits to predict talk-turn topic labels. Different machine learning models were trained to operate on single or multiple local talk-turns (logistic classifiers, support vector machines, gated recurrent units) as well as sequential models that integrate information across talk-turn sequences (conditional random fields, hidden Markov models, and hierarchical gated recurrent units).

resultsEvaluation was performed using cross-validation to measure 1) classification accuracy for talk-turns and 2) precision, recall, and F1 scores at the visit level. Experimental results showed that sequential models had higher classification accuracy at the talk-turn level and higher precision at the visit level. Independent models had higher recall scores at the visit level compared with sequential models.

conclusionsIncorporating sequential information across talk-turns improves the accuracy of topic prediction in patient-provider dialog by smoothing out noisy information from talk-turns. Although the results are promising, more advanced prediction techniques and larger labeled datasets will likely be required to achieve prediction performance appropriate for real-world clinical applications.

Indexed as

CommunicationMachine LearningNatural Language ProcessingNeural Networks, ComputerPhysician-Patient RelationsAgedDatasets as TopicHumansMedical RecordsMiddle AgedOffice VisitsPrimary Health CareTape Recordingclassificationcommunicationpatient caresupervised machine learning

Identifiers

PMID31532490
PMCPMC6857514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.