Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40535751›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery2025

Replicating Current Procedural Terminology code assignment of rhinology operative notes using machine learning.

Christopher P Cheng, Ryan Sicard, Dragan Vujovic, Vikram Vasan, Chris Choi, David K Lerner, Alfred-Marc Iloreta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Christopher P ChengDepartment of Medical Education Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York New York USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9112-9464
Ryan SicardDepartment of Medical Education Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York New York USA.
Dragan VujovicDepartment of Medical Education Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York New York USA.
Vikram VasanDepartment of Medical Education Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York New York USA.
Chris ChoiDepartment of Otolaryngology Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York New York USA.
David K LernerDepartment of Otolaryngology University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Miami Florida USA.
Alfred-Marc IloretaDepartment of Otolaryngology Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York New York USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Documentation and billing are important and time-consuming parts of an otolaryngologist's work. Given advancements in machine learning (ML), we evaluated the ability of ML algorithms to use operative notes to classify rhinology procedures by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) code. We aimed to assess the potential for ML to replicate rhinologists' completion of their administrative tasks. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Urban tertiary hospital. Methods: A total of 594 operative notes from rhinological procedures across six CPT codes performed from 3/2017 to 4/2022 were collected from 22 otolaryngologists. Text was preprocessed and then vectorized using CountVectorizer (CV), term frequency-inverse document frequency, and Word2Vec. The Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression and Naïve Bayes (NB) algorithms were used to train and test models on operative notes. Model-classified CPT codes were compared to codes assigned by operating surgeons. Model performance was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC), precision, recall, and F1-score. Results: Performance varied across vectorizers and ML algorithms. Across all performance metrics, CV and NB was most overall the best combination of vectorizer and ML algorithm across CPT codes and produced the single best AUC, 0.984. Conclusions: In otolaryngology applications, the performance of basic ML algorithms varies depending on the context in which they are used. All algorithms demonstrated their ability to classify CPT codes well as well as the potential for using ML to replicate rhinologists' completion of their administrative tasks.

Indexed as

CPT codemachine learningnatural language processingrhinologyskull base

Identifiers

PMID40535751
PMCPMC12172127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.