Observational studyPloS one2025
Heterogeneity of diagnosis and documentation of post-COVID conditions in primary care: A machine learning analysis.
Observational study 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.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-COVID conditions (PCC) have proven difficult to diagnose. In this retrospective observational study, we aimed to characterize the level of variation in PCC diagnoses observed across clinicians from a number of methodological angles and to determine whether natural language classifiers trained on clinical notes can reconcile differences in diagnostic definitions.
methodsWe used data from 519 primary care clinics around the United States who were in the American Family Cohort registry between October 1, 2021 (when the ICD-10 code for PCC was activated) and November 1, 2023. There were 6,116 patients with a diagnostic code for PCC (U09.9), and 5,020 with diagnostic codes for both PCC and COVID-19. We explored these data using 4 different outcomes: 1) Time between COVID-19 and PCC diagnostic codes; 2) Count of patients with PCC diagnostic codes per clinician; 3) Patient-specific probability of PCC diagnostic code based on patient and clinician characteristics; and 4) Performance of a natural language classifier trained on notes from 5,000 patients annotated by two physicians to indicate probable PCC.
resultsOf patients with diagnostic codes for PCC and COVID-19, 61.3% were diagnosed with PCC less than 12 weeks after initial recorded COVID-19. Clinicians in the top 1% of diagnostic propensity accounted for more than a third of all PCC diagnoses (35.8%). Comparing LASSO logistic regressions predicting documentation of PCC diagnosis, a log-likelihood test showed significantly better fit when clinician and practice site indicators were included (p < 0.0001). Inter-rater agreement between physician annotators on PCC diagnosis was moderate (Cohen's kappa: 0.60), and performance of the natural language classifiers was marginal (best AUC: 0.724, 95% credible interval: 0.555-0.878).
conclusionWe found evidence of substantial disagreement between clinicians on diagnostic criteria for PCC. The variation in diagnostic rates across clinicians points to the possibilities of under- and over-diagnosis for patients.
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.