ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
A computable phenotype for patients with SARS-CoV2 testing that occurred outside the hospital.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify a cohort of COVID-19 cases, including when evidence of virus positivity was only mentioned in the clinical text, not in structured laboratory data in the electronic health record (EHR). Materials and Methods: Statistical classifiers were trained on feature representations derived from unstructured text in patient electronic health records (EHRs). We used a proxy dataset of patients Results: On the test split of the proxy dataset, our best classifier obtained 0.56 F1, 0.6 precision, and 0.52 recall scores for SARS-CoV2 positive cases. In an expert validation, the classifier correctly identified 90.8% (79/87) as COVID-19 positive and 97.8% (91/93) as not SARS-CoV2 positive. The classifier identified an additional 960 positive cases that did not have SARS-CoV2 lab tests in hospital, and only 177 of those cases had the ICD-10 code for COVID-19. Discussion: Proxy dataset performance may be worse because these instances sometimes include discussion of pending lab tests. The most predictive features are meaningful and interpretable. The type of external test that was performed is rarely mentioned. Conclusion: COVID-19 cases that had testing done outside of the hospital can be reliably detected from the text in EHRs. Training on a proxy dataset was a suitable method for developing a highly performant classifier without labor intensive labeling efforts.
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.