Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38573195›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024

Collaborative and privacy-enhancing workflows on a clinical data warehouse: an example developing natural language processing pipelines to detect medical conditions.

Thomas Petit-Jean, Christel Gérardin, Emmanuelle Berthelot, Gilles Chatellier, Marie Frank, Xavier Tannier, Emmanuelle Kempf, Romain Bey

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Natural language processing in dermatology: A systematic literature review and state of the art.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

8 authors.

Thomas Petit-JeanInnovation and Data Unit, IT Department, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, 75012, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4433-442X
Christel GérardinInnovation and Data Unit, IT Department, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, 75012, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9303-6349
Emmanuelle BerthelotDepartment of Cardiology, Hôpital Bicêtre, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, 94270, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0418-3110
Gilles ChatellierInnovation and Data Unit, IT Department, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, 75012, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6373-8956
Marie FrankDepartment of Medical Informatics, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, 94270, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7929-6523
Xavier TannierLaboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et d'Ingénierie des Connaissances pour la e-Santé (LIMICS), INSERM, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Sorbonne Université, Paris, 75005, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2452-8868
Emmanuelle KempfLaboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et d'Ingénierie des Connaissances pour la e-Santé (LIMICS), INSERM, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Sorbonne Université, Paris, 75005, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9285-1966
Romain BeyInnovation and Data Unit, IT Department, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, 75012, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6413-5188

Funding

AP-HP Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop and validate a natural language processing (NLP) pipeline that detects 18 conditions in French clinical notes, including 16 comorbidities of the Charlson index, while exploring a collaborative and privacy-enhancing workflow. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe detection pipeline relied both on rule-based and machine learning algorithms, respectively, for named entity recognition and entity qualification, respectively. We used a large language model pre-trained on millions of clinical notes along with annotated clinical notes in the context of 3 cohort studies related to oncology, cardiology, and rheumatology. The overall workflow was conceived to foster collaboration between studies while respecting the privacy constraints of the data warehouse. We estimated the added values of the advanced technologies and of the collaborative setting.

resultsThe pipeline reached macro-averaged F1-score positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity of 95.7 (95%CI 94.5-96.3), 95.4 (95%CI 94.0-96.3), 96.0 (95%CI 94.0-96.7), and 99.2 (95%CI 99.0-99.4), respectively. F1-scores were superior to those observed using alternative technologies or non-collaborative settings. The models were shared through a secured registry.

conclusionsWe demonstrated that a community of investigators working on a common clinical data warehouse could efficiently and securely collaborate to develop, validate and use sensitive artificial intelligence models. In particular, we provided an efficient and robust NLP pipeline that detects conditions mentioned in clinical notes.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsMachine LearningNatural Language ProcessingWorkflowAlgorithmsConfidentialityData WarehousingFranceHumansCharlson score indexcomorbiditiesdomain adaptationnatural language processingprivacy

Identifiers

PMID38573195
PMCPMC11105139

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.