ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2023
Predicting relations between SOAP note sections: The value of incorporating a clinical information model.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI Scribes in Health Care: Balancing Transformative Potential With Responsible Integration.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Evaluating Improvement in the Documentation of Patient Progress Notes Through the BSOAP Framework: A Clinical Audit.Cureus · 2025Article
- Clinical natural language processing for secondary uses.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Physician progress notes are frequently organized into Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan (SOAP) sections. The Assessment section synthesizes information recorded in the Subjective and Objective sections, and the Plan section documents tests and treatments to narrow the differential diagnosis and manage symptoms. Classifying the relationship between the Assessment and Plan sections has been suggested to provide valuable insight into clinical reasoning. In this work, we use a novel human-in-the-loop pipeline to classify the relationships between the Assessment and Plan sections of SOAP notes as a part of the n2c2 2022 Track 3 Challenge. In particular, we use a clinical information model constructed from both the entailment logic expected from the aforementioned Challenge and the problem-oriented medical record. This information model is used to label named entities as primary and secondary problems/symptoms, events and complications in all four SOAP sections. We iteratively train separate Named Entity Recognition models and use them to annotate entities in all notes/sections. We fine-tune a downstream RoBERTa-large model to classify the Assessment-Plan relationship. We evaluate multiple language model architectures, preprocessing parameters, and methods of knowledge integration, achieving a maximum macro-F1 score of 82.31%. Our initial model achieves top-2 performance during the challenge (macro-F1: 81.52%, competitors' macro-F1 range: 74.54%-82.12%). We improved our model by incorporating post-challenge annotations (S&O sections), outperforming the top model from the Challenge. We also used Shapley additive explanations to investigate the extent of language model clinical logic, under the lens of our clinical information model. We find that the model often uses shallow heuristics and nonspecific attention when making predictions, suggesting language model knowledge integration requires further research.
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.