ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
A Machine Learning Approach for Identifying People With Neuroinfectious Diseases in Electronic Health Records: Algorithm Development and Validation.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Identifying neuroinfectious disease (NID) cases using International Classification of Diseases billing codes is often imprecise, while manual chart reviews are labor-intensive. Machine learning models can leverage unstructured electronic health records to detect subtle NID indicators, process large data volumes efficiently, and reduce misclassification. While accurate NID classification is needed for research and clinical decision support, using unstructured notes for this purpose remains underexplored. Objective: The objective of this study is to develop and validate a machine learning model to identify NIDs from unstructured patient notes. Methods: Clinical notes from patients who had undergone lumbar puncture were obtained using the electronic health record of an academic hospital network (Mass General Brigham [MGB]), with half associated with NID-related diagnostic codes. Ground truth was established by chart review with 6 NID-expert physicians. NID keywords were generated with regular expressions, and extracted texts were converted into bag-of-words representations using n-grams (n=1, 2, 3). Notes were randomly split into training (80%), 2400 notes out of 3000, and hold-out testing (20%), 600 notes out of 3000, sets. Feature selection was performed using logistic regression with L1 regularization. An extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model classified NID cases, and performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) and the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). The performance of the natural language processing (NLP) model was contrasted with the Llama 3.2 auto-regressive model on the MGB test set. The NLP model was additionally validated on external data from an independent hospital (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center [BIDMC]). Results: This study included 3000 patient notes from MGB from January 22, 2010, to September 21, 2023. Of 1284 initial n-gram features, 342 were selected, with the most significant features being "meningitis," "ventriculitis," and "meningoencephalitis." The XGBoost model achieved an AUROC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99) and AUPRC of 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.94) on MGB test data. In comparison, NID identification using International Classification of Diseases billing codes showed high sensitivity (0.97) but poor specificity (0.59), overestimating NID cases. Llama 3.2 improved specificity (0.94) but had low sensitivity (0.64) and an AUROC of 0.80. In contrast, our NLP model balanced specificity (0.96) and sensitivity (0.84), outperforming both methods in accuracy and reliability on MGB data. When tested on external data from BIDMC, the NLP model maintained an AUROC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99), with an AUPRC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.66-0.89). Conclusions: The NLP model accurately identifies NID cases from clinical notes. Validated across 2 independent hospital datasets, the model demonstrates feasibility for large-scale NID research and cohort generation. With further external validation, our results could be more generalizable to other 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.