ArticleJMIR AI2025
Exploring Named Entity Recognition Potential and the Value of Tailored Natural Language Processing Pipelines for Radiology, Pathology, and Progress Notes in Clinical Decision Support: Quantitative Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical notes house rich, yet unstructured, patient data, making analysis challenging due to medical jargon, abbreviations, and synonyms causing ambiguity. This complicates real-time extraction for decision support tools.
objectiveThis study aimed to examine the data curation, technology, and workflow of the named entity recognition (NER) pipeline, a component of a broader clinical decision support tool that identifies key entities using NER models and classifies these entities as present or absent in the patient through an NER assertion model.
methodsWe gathered progress care, radiology, and pathology notes from 5000 patients, dividing them into 5 batches of 1000 patients each. Metrics such as notes and reports per patient, sentence count, token size, runtime, central processing unit, and memory use were measured per note type. We also evaluated the precision of the NER outputs and then the precision and recall of NER assertion models against manual annotations by a clinical expert.
resultsUsing Spark natural language processing clinical pretrained NER models on 138,250 clinical notes, we observed excellent NER precision, with a peak in procedures at 0.989 (95% CI 0.977-1.000) and an accuracy in the assertion model of 0.889 (95% CI 0.856-0.922). Our analysis highlighted long-tail distributions in notes per patient, note length, and entity density. Progress care notes had notably more entities per sentence than radiology and pathology notes, showing 4-fold and 16-fold differences, respectively.
conclusionsFurther research should explore the analysis of clinical notes beyond the scope of our study, including discharge summaries and psychiatric evaluation notes. Recognizing the unique linguistic characteristics of different note types underscores the importance of developing specialized NER models or natural language processing pipeline setups tailored to each type. By doing so, we can enhance their performance across a more diverse range of clinical scenarios.
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.