ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
A modular pipeline for natural language processing-screened human abstraction of a pragmatic trial outcome from electronic health records.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Natural language processing (NLP) allows efficient extraction of clinical variables and outcomes from electronic health records (EHR). However, measuring pragmatic clinical trial outcomes may demand accuracy that exceeds NLP performance. Combining NLP with human adjudication can address this gap, yet few software solutions support such workflows. We developed a modular, scalable system for NLP-screened human abstraction to measure the primary outcomes of two clinical trials. Methods: In two clinical trials of hospitalized patients with serious illness, a deep-learning NLP model screened EHR passages for documented goals-of-care discussions. Screen-positive passages were referred for human adjudication using a REDCap-based system to measure the trial outcomes. Dynamic pooling of passages using structured query language (SQL) within the REDCap database reduced unnecessary abstraction while ensuring data completeness. Results: In the first trial (N=2,512), NLP identified 22,187 screen-positive passages (0.8%) from 2.6 million EHR passages. Human reviewers adjudicated 7,494 passages over 34.3 abstractor-hours to measure the cumulative incidence and time to first documented goals-of-care discussion for all patients with 92.6% patient-level sensitivity. In the second trial (N=617), NLP identified 8,952 screen-positive passages (1.6%) from 559,596 passages at a threshold with near-100% sensitivity. Human reviewers adjudicated 3,509 passages over 27.9 abstractor-hours to measure the same outcome for all patients. Conclusion: We present the design and source code for a scalable and efficient pipeline for measuring complex EHR-derived outcomes using NLP-screened human abstraction. This implementation is adaptable to diverse research needs, and its modular pipeline represents a practical middle ground between custom software and commercial platforms.
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.