Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38200151›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024

Large language models to identify social determinants of health in electronic health records.

Marco Guevara, Shan Chen, Spencer Thomas, Tafadzwa L Chaunzwa, Idalid Franco, Benjamin H Kann, Shalini Moningi, Jack M Qian, Madeleine Goldstein, Susan Harper and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 174 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
174citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

174 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

114 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Marco Guevara *Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Shan Chen *Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7999-7410
Spencer ThomasArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Tafadzwa L ChaunzwaArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Idalid FrancoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Benjamin H KannArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4313-2754
Shalini MoningiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Jack M QianArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Madeleine GoldsteinAdult Resource Office, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Susan HarperAdult Resource Office, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Hugo J W L AertsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2122-2003
Paul J CatalanoDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Guergana K SavovaComputational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Raymond H MakArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Danielle S BittermanArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Danielle_Bitterman@dfci.harvard.edu.

Funding

The Boston Lung Cancer Survival CohortU01CA209414 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI David C Christiani · 2017 to 2026
$12.2M
Shared Resource Core 2: Clinical Artificial Intelligence CoreU54CA274516 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI DAPHNE A. HAAS-KOGAN · 2023 to 2026
$8.1M
Quantitative Radiomics System Decoding the Tumor PhenotypeU24CA194354 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI AERTS, HUGO, QUACKENBUSH, JOHN · 2015 to 2019
$3.5M
Biomarker Approaches to Individualizing Systemic Therapy for High Risk Prostate CancerR01CA240582 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI FENG, FELIX YI-CHUNG, NGUYEN, PAUL L · 2020 to 2024
$3.4M
Genotype and Imaging Phenotype Biomarkers in Lung CancerU01CA190234 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI AERTS, HUGO, QUACKENBUSH, JOHN · 2015 to 2019
$3.3M
Transfer Learning for Digital Curation of the EMR Clinical NarrativeR01LM013486 · NLM · BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI SAVOVA, GUERGANA K. · 2021 to 2024
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA240582NCI NIH HHS U01 CA190234NCI NIH HHS U01 CA209414NCI NIH HHS U24 CA194354NCI NIH HHS U54 CA274516NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013486
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social determinants of health (SDoH) play a critical role in patient outcomes, yet their documentation is often missing or incomplete in the structured data of electronic health records (EHRs). Large language models (LLMs) could enable high-throughput extraction of SDoH from the EHR to support research and clinical care. However, class imbalance and data limitations present challenges for this sparsely documented yet critical information. Here, we investigated the optimal methods for using LLMs to extract six SDoH categories from narrative text in the EHR: employment, housing, transportation, parental status, relationship, and social support. The best-performing models were fine-tuned Flan-T5 XL for any SDoH mentions (macro-F1 0.71), and Flan-T5 XXL for adverse SDoH mentions (macro-F1 0.70). Adding LLM-generated synthetic data to training varied across models and architecture, but improved the performance of smaller Flan-T5 models (delta F1 + 0.12 to +0.23). Our best-fine-tuned models outperformed zero- and few-shot performance of ChatGPT-family models in the zero- and few-shot setting, except GPT4 with 10-shot prompting for adverse SDoH. Fine-tuned models were less likely than ChatGPT to change their prediction when race/ethnicity and gender descriptors were added to the text, suggesting less algorithmic bias (p < 0.05). Our models identified 93.8% of patients with adverse SDoH, while ICD-10 codes captured 2.0%. These results demonstrate the potential of LLMs in improving real-world evidence on SDoH and assisting in identifying patients who could benefit from resource support.

Identifiers

PMID38200151
PMCPMC10781957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.