ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Natural language processing improves reliable identification of COVID-19 compared to diagnostic codes alone.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.