ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023
Selective prediction for extracting unstructured clinical data.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in schizophrenia rehabilitation management: a systematic scoping review.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Defining operational safety in clinical artificial intelligence systems.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Operationalizing machine-assisted translation in healthcare.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Clinical entity augmented retrieval for clinical information extraction.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Risk prediction model for pneumothorax or pleural effusion after microwave ablation in patients with lung malignancy.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Extraction of Unstructured Electronic Health Records to Evaluate Glioblastoma Treatment Patterns.JCO clinical cancer 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWhile there are currently approaches to handle unstructured clinical data, such as manual abstraction and structured proxy variables, these methods may be time-consuming, not scalable, and imprecise. This article aims to determine whether selective prediction, which gives a model the option to abstain from generating a prediction, can improve the accuracy and efficiency of unstructured clinical data abstraction. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe trained selective classifiers (logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine) to extract 5 variables from clinical notes: depression (n = 1563), glioblastoma (GBM, n = 659), rectal adenocarcinoma (DRA, n = 601), and abdominoperineal resection (APR, n = 601) and low anterior resection (LAR, n = 601) of adenocarcinoma. We varied the cost of false positives (FP), false negatives (FN), and abstained notes and measured total misclassification cost.
resultsThe depression selective classifiers abstained on anywhere from 0% to 97% of notes, and the change in total misclassification cost ranged from -58% to 9%. Selective classifiers abstained on 5%-43% of notes across the GBM and colorectal cancer models. The GBM selective classifier abstained on 43% of notes, which led to improvements in sensitivity (0.94 to 0.96), specificity (0.79 to 0.96), PPV (0.89 to 0.98), and NPV (0.88 to 0.91) when compared to a non-selective classifier and when compared to structured proxy variables. DISCUSSION: We showed that selective classifiers outperformed both non-selective classifiers and structured proxy variables for extracting data from unstructured clinical notes.
conclusionSelective prediction should be considered when abstaining is preferable to making an incorrect prediction.
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.