ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Identifying stigmatizing and positive/preferred language in obstetric clinical notes using natural language processing.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Semantic Similarity Search Approach to Extract Exemplars of Stigmatizing and Positive Language in Obstetric Clinical Notes: Exploratory Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Stigmatizing Language in Gender-Expansive Patient Records: Corpus Development, Disparity Analysis, and Natural Language Processing-Based Detection Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Patient-reported postoperative pain and stigmatizing language in anesthesia notes: a cross-sectional study (2017-2019).International journal of obstetric anesthesia · 2026Article
- Detecting stigmatizing language in clinical notes with large language models for addiction care.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Patient Disability Status and the Use of Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Notes During Hospital Admission for Birth.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2025Article
- Identifying and Reducing Stigmatizing Language in Home Health Care With a Natural Language Processing-Based System (ENGAGE): Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Beyond Keywords: A Qualitative Study of Context-Dependent Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Documentation from a Large, Multi-Payer Home Healthcare Agency.Home health care management & practice · 2025Article
- Efficient Detection of Stigmatizing Language in Electronic Health Records via In-Context Learning: Comparative Analysis and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Stigmatizing and Positive Language in Birth Clinical Notes Associated With Race and Ethnicity.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Documentation of Stigmatizing Language in Electronic Health Records and Birth Outcomes.Health equity · 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
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.