ArticleBirth defects research2024
Leveraging automated approaches to categorize birth defects from abstracted birth hospitalization data.
Article in Birth defects research, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network (SET-NET) collects data abstracted from medical records and birth defects registries on pregnant people and their infants to understand outcomes associated with prenatal exposures. We developed an automated process to categorize possible birth defects for prenatal COVID-19, hepatitis C, and syphilis surveillance. By employing keyword searches, fuzzy matching, natural language processing (NLP), and machine learning (ML), we aimed to decrease the number of cases needing manual clinician review.
methodsSET-NET captures International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes and free text describing birth defects. For unstructured data, we used keyword searches, and then conducted fuzzy matching with a cut-off match score of ≥90%. Finally, we employed NLP and ML by testing three predictive models to categorize birth defect data.
resultsAs of June 2023, 8326 observations containing data on possible birth defects were submitted to SET-NET. The majority (n = 6758 [81%]) were matched to an ICD-10-CM code and 1568 (19%) were unable to be matched. Through keyword searches and fuzzy matching, we categorized 1387/1568 possible birth defects. Of the remaining 181 unmatched observations, we correctly categorized 144 (80%) using a predictive model.
conclusionsUsing automated approaches allowed for categorization of 99.6% of reported possible birth defects, which helps detect possible patterns requiring further investigation. Without employing these analytic approaches, manual review would have been needed for 1568 observations. These methods can be employed to quickly and accurately sift through data to inform public health responses.
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.