Observational studySurgery2024
Prediction of intra-abdominal injury using natural language processing of electronic medical record data.
Observational study in Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inter-clinician diagnostic agreement of shock etiology: a multicenter observational study.Health information science and systems · 2026Article
- The Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Blunt Abdominal Trauma-A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to use natural language processing to predict the presence of intra-abdominal injury using unstructured data from electronic medical records.
methodsThis was a random-sample retrospective observational cohort study leveraging unstructured data from injured patients taken to one of 9 acute care hospitals in an integrated health system between 2015 and 2021. Patients with International Classification of Diseases External Cause of Morbidity codes were identified. History and physical, consult, progress, and radiology report text from the first 8 hours of care were abstracted. Annotator dyads independently annotated encounters' text files to establish ground truth regarding whether intra-abdominal injury occurred. Features were extracted from text using natural language processing techniques, bag of words, and principal component analysis. We tested logistic regression, random forests, and gradient boosting machine to determine accuracy, recall, and precision of natural language processing to predict intra-abdominal injury.
resultsA random sample of 7,000 patient encounters of 177,127 was annotated. Only 2,951 had sufficient information to determine whether an intra-abdominal injury was present. Among those, 84 (2.9%) had an intra-abdominal injury. The concordance between annotators was 0.989. Logistic regression of features identified with bag of words and principal component analysis had the best predictive ability, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.9, recall of 0.73, and precision of 0.17. Text features with greatest importance included "abdomen," "pelvis," "spleen," and "hematoma."
conclusionNatural language processing could be a screening decision support tool, which, if paired with human clinical assessment, can maximize precision of intra-abdominal injury identification.
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.