ArticleChild abuse & neglect2023
Using natural language processing to identify child maltreatment in health systems.
Article in Child abuse & neglect, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using Natural Language Processing to Examine State Child Maltreatment Policies and Associations With Outcomes: Multistate Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Clinical and Genetic Evaluation of Suicide Death with and without Interpersonal Trauma Exposure.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- US public health surveillance, reimagined.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Momentary Depressive Feeling Detection Using X (Formerly Twitter) Data: Contextual Language Approach.JMIR AI · 2023Article
- The Potential Influence of AI on Population Mental Health.JMIR mental health · 2023Article
- Estimating the Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect Among Adolescents in Primary Care Through Diagnoses Codes and Free-Text EHR Clinical Notes.Journal of pediatric health care : official publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & PractitionersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRates of child maltreatment (CM) obtained from electronic health records are much lower than national child welfare prevalence rates indicate. There is a need to understand how CM is documented to improve reporting and surveillance.
objectivesTo examine whether using natural language processing (NLP) in outpatient chart notes can identify cases of CM not documented by ICD diagnosis code, the overlap between the coding of child maltreatment by ICD and NLP, and any differences by age, gender, or race/ethnicity.
methodsOutpatient chart notes of children age 0-18 years old within Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) 2018-2020 were used to examine a selected set of maltreatment-related terms categorized into concept unique identifiers (CUI). Manual review of text snippets for each CUI was completed to flag for validated cases and retrain the NLP algorithm.
resultsThe NLP results indicated a crude rate of 1.55 % to 2.36 % (2018-2020) of notes with reference to CM. The rate of CM identified by ICD code was 3.32 per 1000 children, whereas the rate identified by NLP was 37.38 per 1000 children. The groups that increased the most in identification of maltreatment from ICD to NLP were adolescents (13-18 yrs. old), females, Native American children, and those on Medicaid. Of note, all subgroups had substantially higher rates of maltreatment when using NLP.
conclusionsUse of NLP substantially increased the estimated number of children who have been impacted by CM. Accurately capturing this population will improve identification of vulnerable youth at high risk for mental health symptoms.
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.