ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020
Generating Medical Assessments Using a Neural Network Model: Algorithm Development and Validation.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Ten tips to harnessing generative AI for high-quality MCQS in medical education assessment.Medical education online · 2025Article
- Twenty-Five Years of Evolution and Hurdles in Electronic Health Records and Interoperability in Medical Research: Comprehensive Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Review
- Using data science to improve outcomes for persons with opioid use disorder.Substance abuse · 2022Article
- Generating Accurate Electronic Health Assessment from Medical Graph.Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince its inception, artificial intelligence has aimed to use computers to help make clinical diagnoses. Evidence-based medical reasoning is important for patient care. Inferring clinical diagnoses is a crucial step during the patient encounter. Previous works mainly used expert systems or machine learning-based methods to predict the International Classification of Diseases - Clinical Modification codes based on electronic health records. We report an alternative approach: inference of clinical diagnoses from patients' reported symptoms and physicians' clinical observations.
objectiveWe aimed to report a natural language processing system for generating medical assessments based on patient information described in the electronic health record (EHR) notes.
methodsWe processed EHR notes into the Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan sections. We trained a neural network model for medical assessment generation (N2MAG). Our N2MAG is an innovative deep neural model that uses the Subjective and Objective sections of an EHR note to automatically generate an "expert-like" assessment of the patient. N2MAG can be trained in an end-to-end fashion and does not require feature engineering and external knowledge resources.
resultsWe evaluated N2MAG and the baseline models both quantitatively and qualitatively. Evaluated by both the Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation metrics and domain experts, our results show that N2MAG outperformed the existing state-of-the-art baseline models.
conclusionsN2MAG could generate a medical assessment from the Subject and Objective section descriptions in EHR notes. Future work will assess its potential for providing clinical decision support.
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.