ArticleBMC public health2025
Testing regular expression searches and machine learning models to determine housing instability and low income status from primary care electronic medical record data in Toronto, Ontario.
Article in BMC public health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHousing and income are important social determinants of health (SDoH). Primary care providers often do not have information about these determinants, which could be used to support equitable health system planning and care delivery. The aim of this study was to use primary care electronic medical record (EMR) data to test two approaches (machine learning and regular expression searches) to obtain information about patients' housing instability and low income status.
methodsWe used de-identified EMR data from the St. Michael's Hospital Academic Family Health Team (Toronto, Ontario, Canada). A Health Equity Questionnaire is also routinely distributed to patients and includes questions about income and housing status; this formed the reference standard. First, a regular expression (REGEX) classifier was created using key text terms and codes; the second approach used supervised machine learning models (XGBoost). Discrimination and calibration metrics were calculated as compared to the patient-reported responses.
results11,794 eligible patients were included in the housing cohort and 10,454 were in the income cohort. Overall, both approaches had poor sensitivity for determining both housing instability (XGBoost: 3.1%, REGEX: 29.0%) and low income status (XGBoost: 41.7%, REGEX: 17.6%). Positive predictive value (PPV) was satisfactory for the machine learning approach (83.3% for housing, 72.9% for income).
conclusionWhile the machine learning approach demonstrated reasonable PPV, the overall metrics were poor and unlikely to be useful in a clinical setting for identifying patients with housing or economic needs. More robust analysis could be explored, but continued patient-captured SDoH information is necessary.
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.