Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39316421›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2024

Extracting Critical Information from Unstructured Clinicians' Notes Data to Identify Dementia Severity Using a Rule-Based Approach: Feasibility Study.

Ravi Prakash, Matthew E Dupre, Truls Østbye, Hanzhang Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Adaptive cascading artificial intelligence for Alzheimer's disease assessment: a clinically oriented narrative review and implementation framework.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ravi PrakashThomas Lord Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4020-1590
Matthew E DupreDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0976-4715
Truls ØstbyeDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0662-7440
Hanzhang XuDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, School of Medicine, Duke Univeristy, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9617-247X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe severity of Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) is rarely documented in structured data fields in electronic health records (EHRs). Although this information is important for clinical monitoring and decision-making, it is often undocumented or "hidden" in unstructured text fields and not readily available for clinicians to act upon.

objectiveWe aimed to assess the feasibility and potential bias in using keywords and rule-based matching for obtaining information about the severity of ADRD from EHR data.

methodsWe used EHR data from a large academic health care system that included patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of ADRD based on ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision) and ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) codes between 2014 and 2019. We first assessed the presence of ADRD severity information and then the severity of ADRD in the EHR. Clinicians' notes were used to determine the severity of ADRD based on two criteria: (1) scores from the Mini Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment and (2) explicit terms for ADRD severity (eg, "mild dementia" and "advanced Alzheimer disease"). We compiled a list of common ADRD symptoms, cognitive test names, and disease severity terms, refining it iteratively based on previous literature and clinical expertise. Subsequently, we used rule-based matching in Python using standard open-source data analysis libraries to identify the context in which specific words or phrases were mentioned. We estimated the prevalence of documented ADRD severity and assessed the performance of our rule-based algorithm.

resultsWe included 9115 eligible patients with over 65,000 notes from the providers. Overall, 22.93% (2090/9115) of patients were documented with mild ADRD, 20.87% (1902/9115) were documented with moderate or severe ADRD, and 56.20% (5123/9115) did not have any documentation of the severity of their ADRD. For the task of determining the presence of any ADRD severity information, our algorithm achieved an accuracy of >95%, specificity of >95%, sensitivity of >90%, and an F

conclusionsOur study demonstrates the feasibility of using a rule-based matching algorithm to identify ADRD severity from unstructured EHR report data. However, it is essential to acknowledge potential biases arising from differences in documentation practices across various health care systems.

Indexed as

DementiaElectronic Health RecordsFeasibility StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexAgedAged, 80 and overAlzheimer DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleADADRDAIAlzheimer's diseaseAlzheimer's disease and related dementiasartificial intelligencedeep learningdementiaEHRelectric medical recordelectronic health recordEMRgeriatric syndromeshealth recordlarge language modelLLMnatural language processingNLPpatient recordpersonal health recordPHRrule based analysisunstructured data

Identifiers

PMID39316421
PMCPMC11462099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.