ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
The incremental value of unstructured data via natural language processing in machine learning-based COVID-19 mortality prediction: a comparative study.
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 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.
- Evidence-Guided Multimodal Risk Prediction Framework for Severe COVID-19 Outcomes Using EHR and CT Imaging for COVID-19 Clinical Decision Support.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile it is advocated that the use of unstructured data extracted from medical records is important for enhancing machine learning models, few studies have evaluated whether this occurs. A retrospective, head-to-head comparative study was conducted to evaluate machine learning models for in-hospital mortality prediction. The study assessed and quantified the potential performance improvement resulting from the inclusion of unstructured data.
methodsHospitalizations of patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis at a tertiary teaching hospital specialized in emergency care were selected (n = 844). For the models with structured data, 21 variables were selected from laboratory tests and patient monitoring. For the hybrid models, an additional 21 clinical assertions (e.g., "has_symptom affirmed dyspnea") were included. Six models with the best discriminative performance out of 11 trained and validated were selected for the testing phase. The most representative variables were evaluated using an explainable artificial intelligence model.
resultsThe random forest model demonstrated the highest performance, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC ROC) of 0.9260, an increase from 0.9170 when using only structured data. The inclusion of unstructured data also improved sensitivity from 0.8108 to 0.8378 while specificity was maintained at 0.8667. However, these performance improvements were not found to be statistically significant different from models with only structured data.
conclusionThe study concluded that the inclusion of unstructured data did not increase the predictive power of machine learning models for COVID-19 mortality. It was also determined that human involvement is crucial for implementation, specifically for validating natural language processing (NLP) outputs and tailoring the selection of unstructured features, given the inherent challenges in processing such data. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.