ArticlePloS one2024
Care home resident identification: A comparison of address matching methods with Natural Language Processing.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Precision risk assessment for pediatric hospitalization using address-level data in Cincinnati, Ohio.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCare home residents are a highly vulnerable group, but identifying care home residents in routine data is challenging. This study aimed to develop and validate Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods to identify care home residents from primary care address records.
methodsThe proposed system applies an NLP sequential filtering and preprocessing of text, then the calculation of similarity scores between general practice (GP) addresses and care home registered addresses. Performance was evaluated in a diagnostic test study comparing NLP prediction to independent, gold-standard manual identification of care home addresses. The analysis used population data for 771,588 uniquely written addresses for 819,911 people in two NHS Scotland health board regions. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/vsuarezpaniagua/NLPcarehome.
resultsCare home resident identification by NLP methods overall was better in Fife than in Tayside, and better in the over-65s than in the whole population. Methods with the best performance were Correlation (sensitivity 90.2%, PPV 92.0%) for Fife data and Cosine (sensitivity 90.4%, PPV 93.7%) for Tayside. For people aged ≥65 years, the best methods were Jensen-Shannon (sensitivity 91.5%, PPV 98.7%) for Fife and City Block (sensitivity 94.4%, PPV 98.3%) for Tayside. These results show the feasibility of applying NLP methods to real data concluding that computing address similarities outperforms previous works.
conclusionsAddress-matching techniques using NLP methods can determine with reasonable accuracy if individuals live in a care home based on their GP-registered addresses. The performance of the system exceeds previously reported results such as Postcode matching, Markov score or Phonics score.
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.