Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40731247›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025

Natural language processing improves reliable identification of COVID-19 compared to diagnostic codes alone.

Nathaniel Hendrix, Rishi V Parikh, Madeline Taskier, Grace Walter, Robert L Phillips, David H Rehkopf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Nathaniel HendrixCenter for Professionalism and Value in Health Care, American Board of Family Medicine, Washington, DC 20036, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8154-0276
Rishi V ParikhDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1115-844X
Madeline TaskierCenter for Professionalism and Value in Health Care, American Board of Family Medicine, Washington, DC 20036, United States.ORCID 0009-0001-7175-7524
Grace WalterRobert Graham Center, American Academy of Family Physicians, Washington, DC 20036, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4481-823X
Robert L PhillipsCenter for Professionalism and Value in Health Care, American Board of Family Medicine, Washington, DC 20036, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7882-1560
David H RehkopfDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7597-6513

Funding

FDA HHS U01 FD007879US Food & Drug Administration U01FD007879
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Observational COVID-19 studies often rely on diagnostic codes, but their accuracy and potential for differential misclassification across patient subgroups are unclear. In this proof of concept study, we examined age, race, and ethnicity as predictors of differential misclassification by comparing the classification accuracy of diagnostic codes to classifiers based on natural language processing (NLP) of clinical notes. We assessed differential misclassification in two primary care-based samples from the American Family Cohort: first, a cohort of 5000 patients with COVID-19 status assessed by physicians based on notes; and second, 21 659 patients (of 1 560 564) who received COVID-specific antivirals. Using annotated note data, we trained and tested three NLP classifiers (tree-based, recurrent neural network, and transformer-based). Approximately 63% of likely COVID-19 patients in the two samples had a documented ICD-10 code for COVID-19. Sensitivity was highest among younger patients (68.6% for <18 years versus 60.6% for those 75+), and for Hispanic patients (68.0% vs 58.5% for Black/African American patients). The tree-based classifier had the highest area under the ROC curve (0.92), although it was less accurate among older patients. NLP performance drastically worsened predicting data collected post-training. While NLP may improve cohort identification, frequent retraining is likely needed to capture changing documentation.

Indexed as

COVID-19Natural Language ProcessingAdolescentAdultAgedElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesYoung Adultcohort identificationCOVID-19natural language processingsample sizes

Identifiers

PMID40731247
PMCPMC12335755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.