ArticlePloS one2024
Natural language processing augments comorbidity documentation in neurosurgical inpatient admissions.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep learning in neurosurgery: a systematic literature review with a structured analysis of applications across subspecialties.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Integrating GPT-4o Into Data Mining in Neurosurgery: Feasibility and Proof-of-Concept Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Spine Surgery: A Promising Technology.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo establish whether or not a natural language processing technique could identify two common inpatient neurosurgical comorbidities using only text reports of inpatient head imaging. MATERIALS AND
methodsA training and testing dataset of reports of 979 CT or MRI scans of the brain for patients admitted to the neurosurgery service of a single hospital in June 2021 or to the Emergency Department between July 1-8, 2021, was identified. A variety of machine learning and deep learning algorithms utilizing natural language processing were trained on the training set (84% of the total cohort) and tested on the remaining images. A subset comparison cohort (n = 76) was then assessed to compare output of the best algorithm against real-life inpatient documentation.
resultsFor "brain compression", a random forest classifier outperformed other candidate algorithms with an accuracy of 0.81 and area under the curve of 0.90 in the testing dataset. For "brain edema", a random forest classifier again outperformed other candidate algorithms with an accuracy of 0.92 and AUC of 0.94 in the testing dataset. In the provider comparison dataset, for "brain compression," the random forest algorithm demonstrated better accuracy (0.76 vs 0.70) and sensitivity (0.73 vs 0.43) than provider documentation. For "brain edema," the algorithm again demonstrated better accuracy (0.92 vs 0.84) and AUC (0.45 vs 0.09) than provider documentation. DISCUSSION: A natural language processing-based machine learning algorithm can reliably and reproducibly identify selected common neurosurgical comorbidities from radiology reports.
conclusionThis result may justify the use of machine learning-based decision support to augment provider documentation.
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.