ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020
Identifying Acute Low Back Pain Episodes in Primary Care Practice From Clinical Notes: Observational Study.
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 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Moving towards the use of artificial intelligence in pain management.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence and Computer Aided Diagnosis in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Automated Annotation of Pain Chronicity in Patients With Back Pain by Using Electronic Health Records: Retrospective Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Explainable AI reveals tissue pathology and psychosocial drivers of opioid prescription for non-specific chronic low back pain.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Role and Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Treatment of Chronic Pain.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- Comparison of Machine Learning Methods in the Study of Cancer Survivors' Return to Work: An Example of Breast Cancer Survivors with Work-Related Factors in the CONSTANCES Cohort.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Identifying Risk Factors Associated With Lower Back Pain in Electronic Medical Record Free Text: Deep Learning Approach Using Clinical Note Annotations.JMIR medical informatics · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Automatic Pain Assessment: Research Methods and Perspectives.Pain research & management · 2023Review
- A comparative study on deep learning models for text classification of unstructured medical notes with various levels of class imbalance.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- A Comparison of Natural Language Processing Methods for the Classification of Lumbar Spine Imaging Findings Related to Lower Back Pain.Academic radiology · 2022Article
- Improving appropriate imaging for non-specific low back pain.BMJ open quality · 2022Article
- Natural language processing in low back pain and spine diseases: A systematic review.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcute and chronic low back pain (LBP) are different conditions with different treatments. However, they are coded in electronic health records with the same International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) code (M54.5) and can be differentiated only by retrospective chart reviews. This prevents an efficient definition of data-driven guidelines for billing and therapy recommendations, such as return-to-work options.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of automatically distinguishing acute LBP episodes by analyzing free-text clinical notes.
methodsWe used a dataset of 17,409 clinical notes from different primary care practices; of these, 891 documents were manually annotated as acute LBP and 2973 were generally associated with LBP via the recorded ICD-10 code. We compared different supervised and unsupervised strategies for automated identification: keyword search, topic modeling, logistic regression with bag of n-grams and manual features, and deep learning (a convolutional neural network-based architecture [ConvNet]). We trained the supervised models using either manual annotations or ICD-10 codes as positive labels.
resultsConvNet trained using manual annotations obtained the best results with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.98 and an F score of 0.70. ConvNet's results were also robust to reduction of the number of manually annotated documents. In the absence of manual annotations, topic models performed better than methods trained using ICD-10 codes, which were unsatisfactory for identifying LBP acuity.
conclusionsThis study uses clinical notes to delineate a potential path toward systematic learning of therapeutic strategies, billing guidelines, and management options for acute LBP at the point of care.
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.