ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Question Answering for Electronic Health Records: Scoping Review of Datasets and Models.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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.
- Assisting patients with reliable information gathering: A guide to building efficient QA systems for medical use.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Structured taxonomy and framework for developing medical benchmark in large language models derived from scoping review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- A Dataset for Addressing Patient's Information Needs related to Clinical Course of Hospitalization.Scientific data · 2026Article
- LLM-driven collaborative framework for knowledge-enhanced cancer pain assessment and management.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- The incremental value of unstructured data via natural language processing in machine learning-based COVID-19 mortality prediction: a comparative study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Large Language Model Synergy for Ensemble Learning in Medical Question Answering: Design and Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuestion answering (QA) systems for patient-related data can assist both clinicians and patients. They can, for example, assist clinicians in decision-making and enable patients to have a better understanding of their medical history. Substantial amounts of patient data are stored in electronic health records (EHRs), making EHR QA an important research area. Because of the differences in data format and modality, this differs greatly from other medical QA tasks that use medical websites or scientific papers to retrieve answers, making it critical to research EHR QA.
objectiveThis study aims to provide a methodological review of existing works on QA for EHRs. The objectives of this study were to identify the existing EHR QA datasets and analyze them, study the state-of-the-art methodologies used in this task, compare the different evaluation metrics used by these state-of-the-art models, and finally elicit the various challenges and the ongoing issues in EHR QA.
methodsWe searched for articles from January 1, 2005, to September 30, 2023, in 4 digital sources, including Google Scholar, ACL Anthology, ACM Digital Library, and PubMed, to collect relevant publications on EHR QA. Our systematic screening process followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 4111 papers were identified for our study, and after screening based on our inclusion criteria, we obtained 47 papers for further study. The selected studies were then classified into 2 non-mutually exclusive categories depending on their scope: "EHR QA datasets" and "EHR QA models."
resultsA systematic screening process obtained 47 papers on EHR QA for final review. Out of the 47 papers, 53% (n=25) were about EHR QA datasets, and 79% (n=37) papers were about EHR QA models. It was observed that QA on EHRs is relatively new and unexplored. Most of the works are fairly recent. In addition, it was observed that emrQA is by far the most popular EHR QA dataset, both in terms of citations and usage in other papers. We have classified the EHR QA datasets based on their modality, and we have inferred that Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-III) and the National Natural Language Processing Clinical Challenges datasets (ie, n2c2 datasets) are the most popular EHR databases and corpuses used in EHR QA. Furthermore, we identified the different models used in EHR QA along with the evaluation metrics used for these models.
conclusionsEHR QA research faces multiple challenges, such as the limited availability of clinical annotations, concept normalization in EHR QA, and challenges faced in generating realistic EHR QA datasets. There are still many gaps in research that motivate further work. This study will assist future researchers in focusing on areas of EHR QA that have possible future research directions.
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.