ArticleJAMIA open2023
Impact of possible errors in natural language processing-derived data on downstream epidemiologic analysis.
Article in JAMIA open, 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.
- Clinically reported covert cerebrovascular disease and risk of neurological disease: a whole-population cohort of 367 988 people using natural language processing.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2026Article
- Natural language processing of electronic medical records identifies cardioprotective agents for anthracycline induced cardiotoxicity.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Post-marketing surveillance of anticancer drugs using natural language processing of electronic medical records.NPJ digital medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the impact of potential errors in natural language processing (NLP) on the results of epidemiologic studies. Materials and Methods: We utilized data from three outcomes research studies where the primary predictor variable was generated using NLP. For each of these studies, Monte Carlo simulations were applied to generate datasets simulating potential errors in NLP-derived variables. We subsequently fit the original regression models to these partially simulated datasets and compared the distribution of coefficient estimates to the original study results. Results: Among the four models evaluated, the mean change in the point estimate of the relationship between the predictor variable and the outcome ranged from -21.9% to 4.12%. In three of the four models, significance of this relationship was not eliminated in a single of the 500 simulations, and in one model it was eliminated in 12% of simulations. Mean changes in the estimates for confounder variables ranged from 0.27% to 2.27% and significance of the relationship was eliminated between 0% and 9.25% of the time. No variables underwent a shift in the direction of its interpretation. Discussion: Impact of simulated NLP errors on the results of epidemiologic studies was modest, with only small changes in effect estimates and no changes in the interpretation of the findings (direction and significance of association with the outcome) for either the NLP-generated variables or other variables in the models. Conclusion: NLP errors are unlikely to affect the results of studies that use NLP as the source of data.
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.