ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Automated identification of fall-related injuries in unstructured clinical notes.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. 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.
- Natural language processing for geriatric syndromes: a systematic review of methods, applications, and challenges.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Benzodiazepine Initiation and the Risk of Falls or Fall-Related Injuries in Older Adults Following Acute Ischemic Stroke.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2025Article
- A Large Language Model-Based Approach for Coding Information from Free-Text Reported in Fall Risk Surveillance Systems: New Opportunities for In-Hospital Risk Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fall-related injuries (FRIs) are a major cause of hospitalizations among older patients, but identifying them in unstructured clinical notes poses challenges for large-scale research. In this study, we developed and evaluated natural language processing (NLP) models to address this issue. We utilized all available clinical notes from the Mass General Brigham health-care system for 2100 older adults, identifying 154 949 paragraphs of interest through automatic scanning for FRI-related keywords. Two clinical experts directly labeled 5000 paragraphs to generate benchmark-standard labels, while 3689 validated patterns were annotated, indirectly labeling 93 157 paragraphs as validated-standard labels. Five NLP models, including vanilla bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT), the robustly optimized BERT approach (RoBERTa), ClinicalBERT, DistilBERT, and support vector machine (SVM), were trained using 2000 benchmark paragraphs and all validated paragraphs. BERT-based models were trained in 3 stages: masked language modeling, general boolean question-answering, and question-answering for FRIs. For validation, 500 benchmark paragraphs were used, and the remaining 2500 were used for testing. Performance metrics (precision, recall, F1 scores, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], and area under the precision-recall [AUPR] curve) were employed by comparison, with RoBERTa showing the best performance. Precision was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88-0.91), recall was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.93), the F1 score was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92), and the AUROC and AUPR curves were [both??] 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.97). These NLP models accurately identify FRIs from unstructured clinical notes, potentially enhancing clinical-notes-based research efficiency.
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.