ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2025
Extraction of Social Determinants of Health From Electronic Health Records Using Natural Language Processing.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applications of Natural Language Processing and Large Language Models for Social Determinants of Health: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Comparing LLM and Fine-Tuned Model Performance on NVDRS Circumstance Extraction with Varying Prompt Complexity.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2026Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSocial Determinants of Health (SDoH) have a significant effect on health outcomes and inequalities. SDoH can be extracted from electronic health records (EHR) to aid policy development and research to improve population health. Automated extraction using artificial intelligence (AI) can improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The focus of this study was to autonomously extract comprehensive SDoH details from EHR using a natural language processing (NLP)-based AI pipeline. MATERIALS AND
methodsA curated set of 1,000 BC Cancer clinical documents with concentrated SDoH information served as the reference standard for training and evaluating NLP models. Two pipelines were used: an open-source pipeline trained on the annotated medical documents and an industrial pretrained solution used as a benchmark. Three experiments optimized the first pipeline's performance, assessing the effect of including subtype word positions during training. The superior open-source pipeline was then used to extract SDoH information from 13,258 oncology documents.
resultsThe open-source pipeline achieved an average F1 score accuracy of 0.88 on the validation data set for extracting 13 SDoH factors, surpassing the benchmark by 5%. It excelled in detailed subtype extraction, while the benchmark performed better in identifying rarely annotated SDoH information in BC Cancer data set. Overall, 60,717 SDoH factors and associated details were extracted from BC Cancer EHR oncology documents. The most frequently extracted SDoH factors included tobacco use, employment status, marital status, alcohol consumption, and living status, occurring between 8k to 12k times.
conclusionThis study demonstrates the potential of an NLP pipeline to extract SDoH factors from clinical notes, with strong performance on limited data, although data set-specific adjustments are needed for broader application across institutions.
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.