ArticleJournal of racial and ethnic health disparities2025
Disparities in Documentation: Evidence of Race-Based Biases in the Electronic Medical Record.
Article in Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Non-Fatal Self-Inflicted Firearm Injuries Among Adults in the United States, 2000-2021.Journal of community health · 2026Article
- Patient Preferences for Plain-Language Alternatives to Medical Jargon in Clinical Notes.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Factors associated with healthcare professionals' use of stigmatizing language in individuals with diabetes in pregnancy.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Stigmatizing and Positive Language in Birth Clinical Notes Associated With Race and Ethnicity.JAMA network open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Personal implicit biases may contribute to inequitable health outcomes, but the mechanisms of these effects are unclear at a system level. This study aimed to determine whether stigmatizing subjective terms in electronic medical records (EMR) reflect larger societal racial biases. A cross-sectional study was conducted using natural language processing software of all documentation where one or more predefined stigmatizing words were used between January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2021. EMR from emergency care and inpatient encounters in a metropolitan healthcare system were analyzed, focused on the presence or absence of race-based differences in word usage, either by specific terms or by groupings of negative or positive terms based on the common perceptions of the words. The persistence ("stickiness") of negative and/or positive characterizations in subsequent encounters for an individual was also evaluated. Final analyses included 12,238 encounters for 9135 patients, ranging from newborn to 104 years old. White (68%) vs Black/African American (17%) were the analyzed groups. Several negative terms (e.g., noncompliant, disrespectful, and curse words) were significantly more frequent in encounters with Black/African American patients. In contrast, positive terms (e.g., compliant, polite) were statistically more likely to be in White patients' documentation. Independent of race, negative characterizations were twice as likely to persist compared with positive ones in subsequent encounters. The use of stigmatizing language in documentation mirrors the same race-based inequities seen in medical outcomes and larger sociodemographic trends. This may contribute to observed healthcare outcome differences by disseminating one's implicit biases to unknown future healthcare providers.
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.