ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Performance of Natural Language Processing versus International Classification of Diseases Codes in Building Registries for Patients With Fall Injury: Retrospective Analysis.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Standardized registries, such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, are commonly built using administrative codes assigned to patient encounters. However, patients with fall injury are often coded using subsequent injury codes, such as hip fractures. This necessitates manual screening to ensure the accuracy of data registries. Objective: This study aimed to automate the extraction of fall incidents and mechanisms using natural language processing (NLP) and compare this approach with the ICD method. Methods: Clinical notes for patients with fall-induced hip fractures were retrospectively reviewed by medical experts. Fall incidences were detected, annotated, and classified among patients who had a fall-induced hip fracture (case group). The control group included patients with hip fractures without any evidence of falls. NLP models were developed using the annotated notes of the study groups to fulfill two separate tasks: fall occurrence detection and fall mechanism classification. The performances of the models were compared using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: A total of 1769 clinical notes were included in the final analysis for the fall occurrence task, and 783 clinical notes were analyzed for the fall mechanism classification task. The highest F1-score using NLP for fall occurrence was 0.97 (specificity=0.96; sensitivity=0.97), and for fall mechanism classification was 0.61 (specificity=0.56; sensitivity=0.62). Natural language processing could detect up to 98% of the fall occurrences and 65% of the fall mechanisms accurately, compared to 26% and 12%, respectively, by ICD codes. Conclusions: Our findings showed promising performance with higher accuracy of NLP algorithms compared to the conventional method for detecting fall occurrence and mechanism in developing disease registries using clinical notes. Our approach can be introduced to other registries that are based on large data and are in need of accurate annotation and classification.
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.