ArticleWorld journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery2025
Replicating Current Procedural Terminology code assignment of rhinology operative notes using machine learning.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of Natural Language Processing in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Replicating Current Procedural Terminology code assignment of rhinology operative notes using machine learning.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.