ArticleScientific reports2024
Scalable incident detection via natural language processing and probabilistic language models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Note-Extracted Psychosocial Factors for Predicting Suicide Attempt Among ED Patients With Suicidal Ideation.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Strengthening inferential studies in the FDA Sentinel initiative: results from a methodological demonstration project.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Genome sequencing of 35,024 predominantly African ancestry persons addresses gaps in genomics and healthcare.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Clinician-in-the-loop screening saturation: predicting annotation yield for efficient EHR review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Large language models improve the identification of emergency department visits for symptomatic kidney stones.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Large-scale Text Mining of Suicide Attempt improves Identification of Distinct Suicidal Events in Electronic Health Records.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Post marketing safety surveillance depends in part on the ability to detect concerning clinical events at scale. Spontaneous reporting might be an effective component of safety surveillance, but it requires awareness and understanding among healthcare professionals to achieve its potential. Reliance on readily available structured data such as diagnostic codes risks under-coding and imprecision. Clinical textual data might bridge these gaps, and natural language processing (NLP) has been shown to aid in scalable phenotyping across healthcare records in multiple clinical domains. In this study, we developed and validated a novel incident phenotyping approach using unstructured clinical textual data agnostic to Electronic Health Record (EHR) and note type. It's based on a published, validated approach (PheRe) used to ascertain social determinants of health and suicidality across entire healthcare records. To demonstrate generalizability, we validated this approach on two separate phenotypes that share common challenges with respect to accurate ascertainment: (1) suicide attempt; (2) sleep-related behaviors. With samples of 89,428 records and 35,863 records for suicide attempt and sleep-related behaviors, respectively, we conducted silver standard (diagnostic coding) and gold standard (manual chart review) validation. We showed Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve of ~ 0.77 (95% CI 0.75-0.78) for suicide attempt and AUPR ~ 0.31 (95% CI 0.28-0.34) for sleep-related behaviors. We also evaluated performance by coded race and demonstrated differences in performance by race differed across phenotypes. Scalable phenotyping models, like most healthcare AI, require algorithmovigilance and debiasing prior to implementation.
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.