Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39569431›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025

Identifying stigmatizing and positive/preferred language in obstetric clinical notes using natural language processing.

Jihye Kim Scroggins, Ismael I Hulchafo, Sarah Harkins, Danielle Scharp, Hans Moen, Anahita Davoudi, Kenrick Cato, Michele Tadiello, Maxim Topaz, Veronica Barcelona

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors.

Jihye Kim ScrogginsSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0864-7867
Ismael I HulchafoSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States.ORCID 0009-0005-5504-4646
Sarah HarkinsSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States.
Danielle ScharpIcahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, NY 10029, United States.
Hans MoenDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo 02150, Finland.
Anahita DavoudiVNS Health, New York, NY 10017, United States.
Kenrick CatoSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Michele TadielloCenter for Community-Engaged Health Informatics and Data Science, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, United States.
Maxim TopazSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2358-9837
Veronica BarcelonaSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States.

Funding

Columbia University Data Science Institute Seed FundsGordon and Betty Moore Foundation GBMF9048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify stigmatizing language in obstetric clinical notes using natural language processing (NLP). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe analyzed electronic health records from birth admissions in the Northeast United States in 2017. We annotated 1771 clinical notes to generate the initial gold standard dataset. Annotators labeled for exemplars of 5 stigmatizing and 1 positive/preferred language categories. We used a semantic similarity-based search approach to expand the initial dataset by adding additional exemplars, composing an enhanced dataset. We employed traditional classifiers (Support Vector Machine, Decision Trees, and Random Forest) and a transformer-based model, ClinicalBERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) and BERT base. Models were trained and validated on initial and enhanced datasets and were tested on enhanced testing dataset.

resultsIn the initial dataset, we annotated 963 exemplars as stigmatizing or positive/preferred. The most frequently identified category was marginalized language/identities (n = 397, 41%), and the least frequent was questioning patient credibility (n = 51, 5%). After employing a semantic similarity-based search approach, 502 additional exemplars were added, increasing the number of low-frequency categories. All NLP models also showed improved performance, with Decision Trees demonstrating the greatest improvement (21%). ClinicalBERT outperformed other models, with the highest average F1-score of 0.78. DISCUSSION: Clinical BERT seems to most effectively capture the nuanced and context-dependent stigmatizing language found in obstetric clinical notes, demonstrating its potential clinical applications for real-time monitoring and alerts to prevent usages of stigmatizing language use and reduce healthcare bias. Future research should explore stigmatizing language in diverse geographic locations and clinical settings to further contribute to high-quality and equitable perinatal care.

conclusionClinicalBERT effectively captures the nuanced stigmatizing language in obstetric clinical notes. Our semantic similarity-based search approach to rapidly extract additional exemplars enhanced the performances while reducing the need for labor-intensive annotation.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsNatural Language ProcessingObstetricsSocial StigmaFemaleHumansLanguagePregnancySemanticsbiaselectronic health recordshealth communicationnatural language processingnursing informatics

Identifiers

PMID39569431
PMCPMC11756426

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.