ArticlePloS one2025
Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning to classify the status of kidney allograft in Electronic Medical Records written in Spanish.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Leveraging Natural Language Processing to Identify Variation in Kidney Transplant Access.Kidney international reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate identification of graft loss in Electronic Medical Records of kidney transplant recipients is essential but challenging due to inconsistent and not mandatory International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. We developed and validated Natural Language Processing (NLP) and machine learning models to classify the status of kidney allografts in unstructured text in EMRs written in Spanish.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort of 2712 patients transplanted between July 2008 and January 2023, analyzing 117,566 unstructured medical records. NLP involved text normalization, tokenization, stopwords removal, spell-checking, elimination of low-frequency words and stemming. Data was split in training, validation and test sets. Data balance was performed using undersampling technique. Feature selection was performed using LASSO regression. We developed, validated and tested Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and Neural Networks models using 10-fold cross-validation. Performance metrics included area under the curve, F1 Score, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, Negative Predictive Value, and Positive Predictive Value.
resultsThe test performance results showed that the Random Forest model achieved the highest AUC (0.98) and F1 score (0.65). However, it had a modest sensitivity (0.76) and a relatively low PPV (0.56), implying a significant number of false positives. The Neural Network model also performed well with a high AUC (0.98) and reasonable F1 score (0.61), but its PPV (0.49) was lower, indicating more false positives. The Logistic Regression model, while having the lowest AUC (0.91) and F1 score (0.49), showed the highest sensitivity (0.83) with the lowest PPV (0.35).
conclusionWe developed and validated three machine learning models combined with NLP techniques for unstructured texts written in Spanish. The models performed well on the validation set but showed modest performance on the test set due to data imbalance. These models could be adapted for clinical practice, though they may require additional manual work due to high false positive rates.
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.