ArticleJMIR AI2025
Developing a Tool for Identifying Clinical Risk From Free-Text Clinical Records: Natural Language Processing Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic patient records are a valuable yet underused data source; they have been explored in research using natural language processing, but not yet within a third-sector organization.
objectiveThis study aimed to apply natural language processing to develop a risk identification tool capable of discerning high and low suicide risk among veterans, using electronic patient records from a United Kingdom-based veteran mental health charity.
methodsA total of 20,342 notes were extracted for this purpose. To develop the risk tool, 70% of the records formed the training dataset, while the remaining 30% were allocated for testing and evaluation. The classification framework was devised and trained to categorize risk as a binary outcome: 1 indicating high risk and 0 indicating low risk.
resultsThe efficacy of each classifier model was assessed by comparing its results with those from clinical risk assessments. A logistic regression classifier was found to perform best and was used to develop the final model. This comparison allowed for the calculation of the positive predictive value (mean 0.74, SD 0.059; 95% CI 0.70-0.77), negative predictive value (mean 0.73, SD 0.024; 95% CI 0.72-0.75), sensitivity (mean 0.75, SD 0.017; 95% CI 0.74-0.76), F
conclusionsThe risk identification tool successfully determined the correct risk category of veterans from a large sample of clinical notes. Future studies should investigate whether this tool can detect more nuanced differences in risk and be generalizable across data sources.
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.