ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2024
Harnessing Natural Language Processing to Assess Quality of End-of-Life Care for Children With Cancer.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06786104 (A Multisite RWCT Comparing the Effectiveness of a Goals of Care Video and Navigator Intervention, the VIDEO-PEDS Experience, Versus Usual Care in Pediatric Cancer), which is not on this 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.
A Multisite RWCT Comparing the Effectiveness of a Goals of Care Video and Navigator Intervention, the VIDEO-PEDS Experience, Versus Usual Care in Pediatric Cancer
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Palliative Care for Older Adults With Hip Fracture: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed-Methods Study.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2026Article
- Natural Language Processing to Assess Palliative Care Processes and Health Care Utilization in Seriously Ill Older Adults with Severe Trauma.Journal of palliative medicine · 2026Article
- Natural Language Processing: Set to Transform Pediatric Research.Hospital pediatrics · 2025Article
- Qualitative Health-Related Quality of Life and Natural Language Processing: Characteristics, Implications, and Challenges.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeData on end-of-life care (EOLC) quality, assessed through evidence-based quality measures (QMs), are difficult to obtain. Natural language processing (NLP) enables efficient quality measurement and is not yet used for children with serious illness. We sought to validate a pediatric-specific EOLC-QM keyword library and evaluate EOLC-QM attainment among childhood cancer decedents.
methodsIn a single-center cohort of children with cancer who died between 2014 and 2022, we piloted a rule-based NLP approach to examine the content of clinical notes in the last 6 months of life. We identified documented discussions of five EOLC-QMs: goals of care, limitations to life-sustaining treatments (LLST), hospice, palliative care consultation, and preferred location of death. We assessed performance of NLP methods, compared with gold standard manual chart review. We then used NLP to characterize proportions of decedents with documented EOLC-QM discussions and timing of first documentation relative to death.
resultsAmong 101 decedents, nearly half were minorities (Hispanic/Latinx [24%], non-Hispanic Black/African American [20%]), female (48%), or diagnosed with solid tumors (43%). Through iterative refinement, our keyword library achieved robust performance statistics (for all EOLC-QMs, F1 score = 1.0). Most decedents had documented discussions regarding goals of care (83%), LLST (83%), and hospice (74%). Fewer decedents had documented discussions regarding palliative care consultation (49%) or preferred location of death (36%). For all five EOLC-QMs, first documentation occurred, on average, >30 days before death.
conclusionA high proportion of decedents attained specified EOLC-QMs more than 30 days before death. Our findings indicate that NLP is a feasible approach to measuring quality of care for children with cancer at the end of life and is ripe for multi-center research and quality improvement.
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.