ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025
Extracting Social Determinants of Health from Dental Clinical Notes.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 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.
- Using reasoning LLMs to extract SDOH events from clinical notes.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In dentistry, social determinants of health (SDoH) are potentially recorded in the clinical notes of electronic dental records. The objective of this study was to examine the availability of SDoH data in dental clinical notes and evaluate natural language processing methods to extract SDoH from dental clinical notes.A set of 1,000 dental clinical notes was sampled from a dataset of 105,311 patient visits to a dental clinic and manually annotated for information pertaining to sugar, tobacco, alcohol, methamphetamine, housing, and employment. Annotations included temporality, dose, type, duration, and frequency where appropriate. Experiments were to compare extraction using fine-tuned pretrained language models (PLMs) with a rule-based approach. Performance was measured by F1-score.For identifying SDoH, the best-performing PLM method produced F1-scores of 0.75 (sugar), 0.69 (tobacco), 0.67 (alcohol), 0.42 (housing), and 0 (employment). The rule-based method produced F1-scores of 0.70 (sugar), 0.69 (tobacco), 0.53 (alcohol), 0.44 (housing), and 0 (employment). The overall difference between PLMs and rule-based methods was F1-score of 0.04 (95% confidence interval -0.01, 0.09). SDoH were relatively rare in dental clinical notes, from sugar (9.1%), tobacco (3.9%), alcohol (1.2%), housing (1.2%), employment (0.2%), and methamphetamine use (0%).The main challenge of extracting SDoH information from dental clinical notes was the frequency with which they are recorded, and the brevity and inconsistency where they are recorded. Improved surveillance likely needs new ways to standardize how SDoHs are reported in dental clinical notes.
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.