Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35663112›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2022

A scoping review of ethics considerations in clinical natural language processing.

Oliver J Bear Don't Walk, Harry Reyes Nieva, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Noémie Elhadad

Erratum issuedAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Understanding Stigmatizing Language Lexicons: A Comparative Analysis in Clinical Contexts.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. A scoping review of models to identify transgender patients in electronic health records.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Oliver J Bear Don't WalkDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Harry Reyes NievaDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7774-2561
Sandra Soo-Jin LeeDepartment of Medical Humanities and Ethics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Noémie ElhadadDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

Training in Biomedical Informatics at Columbia UniversityT15LM007079 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI NOEMIE ELHADAD, GEORGE M HRIPCSAK · 1992 to 2026
$28.9M
Extended Methods and Software Development for Health NLPR01GM114355 · NIGMS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI BETHARD, STEVEN, SAVOVA, GUERGANA K. · 2016 to 2024
$5.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM114355NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To review through an ethics lens the state of research in clinical natural language processing (NLP) for the study of bias and fairness, and to identify gaps in research. Methods: We queried PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published between 2015 and 2021 concerning clinical NLP, bias, and fairness. We analyzed articles using a framework that combines the machine learning (ML) development process (ie, design, data, algorithm, and critique) and bioethical concepts of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, justice, as well as explicability. Our approach further differentiated between biases of clinical text (eg, systemic or personal biases in clinical documentation towards patients) and biases in NLP applications. Results: Out of 1162 articles screened, 22 met criteria for full text review. We categorized articles based on the design ( Discussion: Clinical NLP can be used to study bias in applications reliant on clinical text data as well as explore biases in the healthcare setting. We identify 3 areas of active research that require unique ethical considerations about the potential for clinical NLP to address and/or perpetuate bias: (1) selecting metrics that interrogate bias in models; (2) opportunities and risks of identifying sensitive patient attributes; and (3) best practices in reconciling individual autonomy, leveraging patient data, and inferring and manipulating sensitive information of subgroups. Finally, we address the limitations of current ethical frameworks to fully address concerns of justice. Clinical NLP is a rapidly advancing field, and assessing current approaches against ethical considerations can help the discipline use clinical NLP to explore both healthcare biases and equitable NLP applications.

Indexed as

biasethically informedfairnessnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID35663112
PMCPMC9154253

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.