ArticleFrontiers in digital health2023
Assessing the utility of deep neural networks in detecting superficial surgical site infections from free text electronic health record data.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for infection surveillance, risk stratification, and antimicrobial decision support in acute-care hospitals: a scoping review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Explainable Machine Learning Predictive Models for Surgical Site Infections: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A scoping review of human-AI collaboration patterns and task divisions in healthcare applications.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Which Method Best Predicts Postoperative Complications: Deep Learning, Machine Learning, or Conventional Logistic Regression?Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Validation of natural language processing for surgical complication surveillance: detecting 11 postoperative complications from electronic health records.BMJ connections surgery · 2026Article
- Development and validation of artificial intelligence models for early detection of postoperative infections (PERISCOPE): a multicentre study using electronic health record data.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in hospital infection prevention: an integrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Advancing Patient Safety: The Future of Artificial Intelligence in Mitigating Healthcare-Associated Infections: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Assessing the utility of natural language processing for detecting postoperative complications from free medical text.BJS open · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-quality outcomes data is crucial for continued surgical quality improvement. Outcomes are generally captured through structured administrative data or through manual curation of unstructured electronic health record (EHR) data. The aim of this study was to apply natural language processing (NLP) to chart notes in the EHR to accurately capture postoperative superficial surgical site infections (SSSIs). Methods: Deep Learning (DL) NLP models were trained on data from 389,865 surgical cases across all 11 hospitals in the Capital Region of Denmark. Surgical cases in the training dataset were performed between January 01st, 2017, and October 30th, 2021. We trained a forward reading and a backward reading universal language model on unlabeled postoperative chart notes recorded within 30 days of a surgical procedure. The two language models were subsequently finetuned on labeled data for the classification of SSSIs. Validation and testing were performed on surgical cases performed during the month of November 2021. We propose two different use cases: a stand-alone machine learning (SAM) pipeline and a human-in-the-loop (HITL) pipeline. Performances of both pipelines were compared to administrative data and to manual curation. Results: The models were trained on 3,983,864 unlabeled chart notes and finetuned on 1,231,656 labeled notes. Models had a test area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC AUC) of 0.989 on individual chart notes and 0.980 on an aggregated case level. The SAM pipeline had a sensitivity of 0.604, a specificity of 0.996, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.763, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.991. Prior to human review, the HITL pipeline had a sensitivity of 0.854, a specificity of 0.987, a PPV of 0.603, and a NPV of 0.997. Conclusion: The performance of the SAM pipeline was superior to administrative data, and significantly outperformed previously published results. The performance of the HITL pipeline approached that of manual curation.
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.