Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40797317›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Applying text-mining to clinical notes: the identification of patient characteristics from electronic health records (EHRs).

Simone Ten Hoope, Koen Welvaars, Kylian van Geijtenbeek, Mellanie Klok-Everaars, Sander van Schaik, Fatma Karapinar-Çarkit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
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.

Simone Ten HoopeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. simone.mk.tenhoope@gmail.com.ORCID 0009-0005-0750-0424
Koen WelvaarsDepartment of Data Science, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kylian van GeijtenbeekDepartment of Data Science, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mellanie Klok-EveraarsDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sander van SchaikDepartment of Neurology, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Fatma Karapinar-ÇarkitDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3077-9663

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical notes contain information on critical patient characteristics, which, if overlooked, could escalate the risk of adverse events as well as miscommunication between the healthcare professional and the patient. This study investigates the feasibility of employing text-mining to extract patient characteristics from Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and compares the effectiveness of text-mining against human intelligence for identifying four patient characteristics: language barrier, living alone, cognitive frailty and non-adherence.

methodsA manual "golden" standard was created from 1,120 patient files (878 patients) that had unplanned hospital readmissions. Each patient was categorized in one (or multiple) of the four characteristics with supporting clinical notes extracted from their EHRs. For simple terminology, a rule-based (RB) SQL query was used, and for complex terms, Named Entity Recognition (NER) models were used. Model performance was compared to the manual standard. The primary outcomes were recall, specificity, precision, negative predictive value (NPV) and F1-score.

resultsPerformance of each patient characteristic was evaluated using a separate train/test dataset. An additional validation dataset was used for the NER models. Within the train/test set, the language barrier RB query achieved a recall of 0.99 (specificity of 0.96). The living alone NER model achieved a recall of 0.86 (specificity of 0.94) on the train/test set and a recall of 0.81 (specificity of 1.00) on the validation set. In that same order, the cognitive frailty model yielded a recall of 0.59 (specificity 0.76) on the train/test set and a recall of 0.73 (specificity 0.96) on the validation set. The NER model for non-adherence achieved a recall of 0.75 (specificity of 0.99) on the train/test set, and a recall of 0.90 (specificity of 0.99) on the validation set. The models showed the tendency to overestimate the presence of patient characteristics such as identifying a family member's language barrier as the patient's.

conclusionThis study successfully demonstrated the feasibility of applying text-mining to identify patient characteristics from EHRs. Also, it seems for more complex terminology, NER models outperform the rule-based option. Future work involves refining these models for broader application in clinical settings. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Communication BarriersData MiningElectronic Health RecordsAgedFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedElectronic health records (EHRs)Natural language processing (NLP)Patient characteristicsRule-based (RB) algorithmsText-mining

Identifiers

PMID40797317
PMCPMC12344823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.