Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36273236›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2022

Automated clinical coding: what, why, and where we are?

Hang Dong, Matúš Falis, William Whiteley, Beatrice Alex, Joshua Matterson, Shaoxiong Ji, Jiaoyan Chen, Honghan Wu

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
23.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Automated data collection in cancer care: State of play among registries in the United Kingdom and Europe.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Hang DongCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. hang.dong@cs.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6828-6891
Matúš FalisSchool of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
William WhiteleyCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4816-8991
Beatrice AlexSchool of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Joshua MattersonEpic Systems Corporation, Verona, WI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7085-0153
Shaoxiong JiDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3281-8002
Jiaoyan ChenDepartment of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4643-6750
Honghan WuInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK. honghan.wu@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0213-5668
University of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBAalto University · FIHealth Data Research UK · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SCAF/17/01Medical Research Council MC_PC_18029Medical Research Council MR/S004149/1Medical Research Council MR/S004149/2Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical coding is the task of transforming medical information in a patient's health records into structured codes so that they can be used for statistical analysis. This is a cognitive and time-consuming task that follows a standard process in order to achieve a high level of consistency. Clinical coding could potentially be supported by an automated system to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the process. We introduce the idea of automated clinical coding and summarise its challenges from the perspective of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Natural Language Processing (NLP), based on the literature, our project experience over the past two and half years (late 2019-early 2022), and discussions with clinical coding experts in Scotland and the UK. Our research reveals the gaps between the current deep learning-based approach applied to clinical coding and the need for explainability and consistency in real-world practice. Knowledge-based methods that represent and reason the standard, explainable process of a task may need to be incorporated into deep learning-based methods for clinical coding. Automated clinical coding is a promising task for AI, despite the technical and organisational challenges. Coders are needed to be involved in the development process. There is much to achieve to develop and deploy an AI-based automated system to support coding in the next five years and beyond.

Identifiers

PMID36273236
PMCPMC9588058
OpenAlexW4307138871

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.