ArticleBMC primary care2024
Developing and testing a framework for coding general practitioners' free-text diagnoses in electronic medical records - a reliability study for generating training data in natural language processing.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Automated ICD-10-Anchored Classification of Primary Care Text Data: Development and Evaluation of a Custom Multilabel Classifier.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnoses entered by general practitioners into electronic medical records have great potential for research and practice, but unfortunately, diagnoses are often in uncoded format, making them of little use. Natural language processing (NLP) could assist in coding free-text diagnoses, but NLP models require local training data to unlock their potential. The aim of this study was to develop a framework of research-relevant diagnostic codes, to test the framework using free-text diagnoses from a Swiss primary care database and to generate training data for NLP modelling.
methodsThe framework of diagnostic codes was developed based on input from local stakeholders and consideration of epidemiological data. After pre-testing, the framework contained 105 diagnostic codes, which were then applied by two raters who independently coded randomly drawn lines of free text (LoFT) from diagnosis lists extracted from the electronic medical records of 3000 patients of 27 general practitioners. Coding frequency and mean occurrence rates (n and %) and inter-rater reliability (IRR) of coding were calculated using Cohen's kappa (Κ).
resultsThe sample consisted of 26,980 LoFT and in 56.3% no code could be assigned because it was not a specific diagnosis. The most common diagnostic codes were, 'dorsopathies' (3.9%, a code covering all types of back problems, including non-specific lower back pain, scoliosis, and others) and 'other diseases of the circulatory system' (3.1%). Raters were in almost perfect agreement (Κ ≥ 0.81) for 69 of the 105 diagnostic codes, and 28 codes showed a substantial agreement (K between 0.61 and 0.80). Both high coding frequency and almost perfect agreement were found in 37 codes, including codes that are particularly difficult to identify from components of the electronic medical record, such as musculoskeletal conditions, cancer or tobacco use.
conclusionThe coding framework was characterised by a subset of very frequent and highly reliable diagnostic codes, which will be the most valuable targets for training NLP models for automated disease classification based on free-text diagnoses from Swiss general practice.
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.