Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32130159›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020

Identifying Acute Low Back Pain Episodes in Primary Care Practice From Clinical Notes: Observational Study.

Riccardo Miotto, Bethany L Percha, Benjamin S Glicksberg, Hao-Chih Lee, Lisanne Cruz, Joel T Dudley, Ismail Nabeel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Moving towards the use of artificial intelligence in pain management.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Artificial Intelligence and Computer Aided Diagnosis in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Riccardo MiottoHasso Plattner Institute for Digital Health at Mount Sinai, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7815-6000
Bethany L PerchaInstitute for Next Generation Healthcare, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0988-4183
Benjamin S GlicksbergHasso Plattner Institute for Digital Health at Mount Sinai, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4515-8090
Hao-Chih LeeInstitute for Next Generation Healthcare, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1538-6175
Lisanne CruzDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2894-0240
Joel T DudleyInstitute for Next Generation Healthcare, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7036-6492
Ismail NabeelDepartment of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6909-1970
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · US

Funding

Pilot Projects/Mt. SinaiT42OH008422 · OH · MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE OF NYU · PI MEYER, JOHN D · 2005 to 2025
$28.6M
NIOSH CDC HHS T42 OH008422
6 · The paper itself

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

clinical noteselectronic health recordslow back painmachine learningnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID32130159
PMCPMC7068466
OpenAlexW2995452567

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.