ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2023
Analysis of 'One in a Million' primary care consultation conversations using natural language processing.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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.
- AI-generated clinical summaries: errors and susceptibility to speech and speaker variability.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- AI and Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Intensive Care Medicine: Critical Recalibrations from Rule-Based Systems to Frontier Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Clinical AI Scribes in primary care: accuracy, error severity and implications for clinical practice.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Impact of acoustic and informational noise on AI-generated clinical summaries.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Deep Learning and Vision Transformer for Medical Image Analysis.Journal of imaging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundModern patient electronic health records form a core part of primary care; they contain both clinical codes and free text entered by the clinician. Natural language processing (NLP) could be employed to generate these records through 'listening' to a consultation conversation.
objectivesThis study develops and assesses several text classifiers for identifying clinical codes for primary care consultations based on the doctor-patient conversation. We evaluate the possibility of training classifiers using medical code descriptions, and the benefits of processing transcribed speech from patients as well as doctors. The study also highlights steps for improving future classifiers.
methodsUsing verbatim transcripts of 239 primary care consultation conversations (the 'One in a Million' dataset) and novel additional datasets for distant supervision, we trained NLP classifiers (naïve Bayes, support vector machine, nearest centroid, a conventional BERT classifier and few-shot BERT approaches) to identify the International Classification of Primary Care-2 clinical codes associated with each consultation.
resultsOf all models tested, a fine-tuned BERT classifier was the best performer. Distant supervision improved the model's performance (F1 score over 16 classes) from 0.45 with conventional supervision with 191 labelled transcripts to 0.51. Incorporating patients' speech in addition to clinician's speech increased the BERT classifier's performance from 0.45 to 0.55 F1 (p=0.01, paired bootstrap test).
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that NLP classifiers can be trained to identify clinical area(s) being discussed in a primary care consultation from audio transcriptions; this could represent an important step towards a smart digital assistant in the consultation room.
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.