ArticleNature communications2022
Deciphering clinical abbreviations with a privacy protecting machine learning system.
Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- End-to-end pipeline for automated heart failure diagnosis with clinical notes using SNOMED-CT.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Auto-expansion software prompting reduces abbreviation use in electronic hospital discharge letters: an observational pre- and post-intervention study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Observational
- Processing of Short-Form Content in Clinical Narratives: Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Exploring the opportunities of large language models for summarizing palliative care consultations: A pilot comparative study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physicians write clinical notes with abbreviations and shorthand that are difficult to decipher. Abbreviations can be clinical jargon (writing "HIT" for "heparin induced thrombocytopenia"), ambiguous terms that require expertise to disambiguate (using "MS" for "multiple sclerosis" or "mental status"), or domain-specific vernacular ("cb" for "complicated by"). Here we train machine learning models on public web data to decode such text by replacing abbreviations with their meanings. We report a single translation model that simultaneously detects and expands thousands of abbreviations in real clinical notes with accuracies ranging from 92.1%-97.1% on multiple external test datasets. The model equals or exceeds the performance of board-certified physicians (97.6% vs 88.7% total accuracy). Our results demonstrate a general method to contextually decipher abbreviations and shorthand that is built without any privacy-compromising data.
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.