Articlenpj health systems2025
Extracting post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection symptoms from clinical notes via hybrid natural language processing.
Article in npj health systems, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurately and efficiently diagnosing Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) remains challenging due to its myriad symptoms that evolve over long- and variable-time intervals. To address this issue, we developed a hybrid natural language processing pipeline that integrates rule-based named entity recognition with BERT-based assertion detection modules for PASC-symptom extraction and assertion detection from clinical notes. We developed a comprehensive PASC lexicon with clinical specialists. From 11 health systems of the RECOVER initiative network across the U.S., we curated 160 intake progress notes for model development and evaluation, and collected 47,654 progress notes for a population-level prevalence study. We achieved an average F1 score of 0.82 in one-site internal validation and 0.76 in 10-site external validation for assertion detection. Our pipeline processed each note at 2.448 ± 0.812 seconds on average. Spearman correlation tests showed ρ > 0.83 for positive mentions and ρ > 0.72 for negative ones, both with
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.