Observational studyJournal of advanced nursing2025
Enhancing Adverse Event Reporting With Clinical Language Models: Inpatient Falls.
Observational study in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A five-year retrospective study of patient falls in a tertiary hospital: frequency, characteristics, and contributing factors.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- An Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models in Clinical Nursing: A Scoping Review and Expert Consultation.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Automating Patient Safety Workflows: The Development and Implementation of LLaMPS, a Secure Large Language Model Application.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo develop a method for computationally detecting fall events using clinical language models to complement existing self-reporting mechanisms.
designRetrospective observational study.
methodsText data were collected from the unstructured nursing notes of three hospitals' electronic health records and the Korean national patient safety reports, totalling 34,480 records covering the period from January 2015 to December 2019. Note-level labelling was conducted by two researchers with 95% agreement. Preprocessing data anonymisation and English translation were followed by semantic validation. Five language models based on pretrained Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) and Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-4 with prompt programming were explored. Model performance was assessed using F measurements. Error analysis was conducted for the GPT-4 results.
resultsFine-tuned BERT models with the English data set outperformed GPT-4, with Bio+Clinical BERT achieving the highest F1 score of 0.98. Fine-tuned Korean BERT with the Korean data set also reached an F1 score of 0.98, while GPT-4 achieved a competitive F1 score of 0.94. GPT-4 with prompt programming showed much higher F1 scores than GPT-4 with a standardised prompt for the English data set (0.85 vs. 0.39) and the Korean data set (0.94 vs. 0.03). The error analysis identified that the common misclassification patterns included fall history and homonyms, causing false positives and implicit expressions and missing contextual information, causing false negatives.
conclusionThe clinical language model approach, if used alongside the existing self-reporting, promises to increase the chance of identifying the majority of factual falls without the need for additional chart reviews. IMPACT: Inpatient falls are often underreported, with up to 91% of incidents missed in self-reports. Using language models, we identified a significant portion of these unreported falls, improving the accuracy of adverse event tracking while reducing the self-reporting burden on nurses. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Not applicable.
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.