Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34730546›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning Methods to Characterize Unstructured Patient-Reported Outcomes: Validation Study.

Zhaohua Lu, Jin-Ah Sim, Jade X Wang, Christopher B Forrest, Kevin R Krull, Deokumar Srivastava, Melissa M Hudson, Leslie L Robison, Justin N Baker, I-Chan Huang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Using natural language processing in emergency medicine health service research: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Real-world data and evidence: pioneering frontiers in precision oncology.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Zhaohua Lu *Department of Biostatistics, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3245-2004
Jin-Ah Sim *Department of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3494-3002
Jade X WangDepartment of Biostatistics, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5377-0509
Christopher B ForrestRoberts Center for Pediatric Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1252-068X
Kevin R KrullDepartment of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0476-7001
Deokumar SrivastavaDepartment of Biostatistics, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6693-8120
Melissa M HudsonDepartment of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6984-2407
Leslie L RobisonDepartment of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7460-8578
Justin N BakerDepartment of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6584-6483
I-Chan HuangDepartment of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1194-3923
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital · USChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia · US

Funding

The St. Jude Lifetime CohortU01CA195547 · NCI · ST. JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL · PI HUDSON, MELISSA M, NESS, KIRSTEN KIMBERLIE · 2015 to 2024
$14.9M
Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of CTCAE involving Childhood Cancer SurvivorsR01CA238368 · NCI · ST. JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL · PI BAKER, JUSTIN N, HUANG, I-CHAN · 2019 to 2023
$3.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA238368NCI NIH HHS U01 CA195547
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through interviews or conversations during clinical encounters provides insightful information about survivorship.

objectiveThis study aims to test the validity of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) algorithms in identifying different attributes of pain interference and fatigue symptoms experienced by child and adolescent survivors of cancer versus the judgment by PRO content experts as the gold standard to validate NLP/ML algorithms.

methodsThis cross-sectional study focused on child and adolescent survivors of cancer, aged 8 to 17 years, and caregivers, from whom 391 meaning units in the pain interference domain and 423 in the fatigue domain were generated for analyses. Data were collected from the After Completion of Therapy Clinic at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. Experienced pain interference and fatigue symptoms were reported through in-depth interviews. After verbatim transcription, analyzable sentences (ie, meaning units) were semantically labeled by 2 content experts for each attribute (physical, cognitive, social, or unclassified). Two NLP/ML methods were used to extract and validate the semantic features: bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) and Word2vec plus one of the ML methods, the support vector machine or extreme gradient boosting. Receiver operating characteristic and precision-recall curves were used to evaluate the accuracy and validity of the NLP/ML methods.

resultsCompared with Word2vec/support vector machine and Word2vec/extreme gradient boosting, BERT demonstrated higher accuracy in both symptom domains, with 0.931 (95% CI 0.905-0.957) and 0.916 (95% CI 0.887-0.941) for problems with cognitive and social attributes on pain interference, respectively, and 0.929 (95% CI 0.903-0.953) and 0.917 (95% CI 0.891-0.943) for problems with cognitive and social attributes on fatigue, respectively. In addition, BERT yielded superior areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for cognitive attributes on pain interference and fatigue domains (0.923, 95% CI 0.879-0.997; 0.948, 95% CI 0.922-0.979) and superior areas under the precision-recall curve for cognitive attributes on pain interference and fatigue domains (0.818, 95% CI 0.735-0.917; 0.855, 95% CI 0.791-0.930).

conclusionsThe BERT method performed better than the other methods. As an alternative to using standard PRO surveys, collecting unstructured PROs via interviews or conversations during clinical encounters and applying NLP/ML methods can facilitate PRO assessment in child and adolescent cancer survivors.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNatural Language ProcessingAdolescentAlgorithmsChildCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPatient Reported Outcome Measuresmachine learningnatural language processingpediatric oncologyPROs

Identifiers

PMID34730546
PMCPMC8600437
OpenAlexW3210307996

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.