Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38525734›Full record

ArticleHeadache2024

A large language model-based generative natural language processing framework fine-tuned on clinical notes accurately extracts headache frequency from electronic health records.

Chia-Chun Chiang, Man Luo, Gina Dumkrieger, Shubham Trivedi, Yi-Chieh Chen, Chieh-Ju Chao, Todd J Schwedt, Abeed Sarker, Imon Banerjee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Headache, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Chia-Chun ChiangDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7802-7172
Man LuoDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-0067-2283
Gina DumkriegerDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9519-5370
Shubham TrivediDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0526-7970
Yi-Chieh ChenDepartment of Pharmacy, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2132-5483
Chieh-Ju ChaoDepartment of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6155-0266
Todd J SchwedtDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7780-7086
Abeed SarkerDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7358-544X
Imon BanerjeeDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3327-8004

Funding

Flexible NLP toolkit for automatic curation of outcomes for breast cancer patientsU01CA269264 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ARIZONA · PI Imon Banerjee, Theresa H M Keegan · 2022 to 2026
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA269264NIH/National Cancer Institute U01 CA269264-01-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm that can accurately extract headache frequency from free-text clinical notes.

backgroundHeadache frequency, defined as the number of days with any headache in a month (or 4 weeks), remains a key parameter in the evaluation of treatment response to migraine preventive medications. However, due to the variations and inconsistencies in documentation by clinicians, significant challenges exist to accurately extract headache frequency from the electronic health record (EHR) by traditional NLP algorithms.

methodsThis was a retrospective cross-sectional study with patients identified from two tertiary headache referral centers, Mayo Clinic Arizona and Mayo Clinic Rochester. All neurology consultation notes written by 15 specialized clinicians (11 headache specialists and 4 nurse practitioners) between 2012 and 2022 were extracted and 1915 notes were used for model fine-tuning (90%) and testing (10%). We employed four different NLP frameworks: (1) ClinicalBERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) regression model, (2) Generative Pre-Trained Transformer-2 (GPT-2) Question Answering (QA) model zero-shot, (3) GPT-2 QA model few-shot training fine-tuned on clinical notes, and (4) GPT-2 generative model few-shot training fine-tuned on clinical notes to generate the answer by considering the context of included text.

resultsThe mean (standard deviation) headache frequency of our training and testing datasets were 13.4 (10.9) and 14.4 (11.2), respectively. The GPT-2 generative model was the best-performing model with an accuracy of 0.92 (0.91, 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and R

conclusionWe developed a robust information extraction model based on a state-of-the-art large language model, a GPT-2 generative model that can extract headache frequency from EHR free-text clinical notes with high accuracy and R

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsNatural Language ProcessingAdultAlgorithmsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHeadacheHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studiesartificial intelligenceheadache frequencylarge language modelmigrainenatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID38525734
PMCPMC12128507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.