ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Clinician-in-the-loop screening saturation: predicting annotation yield for efficient EHR review.
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLabor- and cost-intensive manual chart review of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) remains a major bottleneck in retrospective studies, particularly when rare-disease cohorts require high specificity. Automated Natural Language Processing (NLP) rankers help, yet when trained on dated data, they leave teams guessing how long to keep reviewing charts. Therefore, this study presents a regression-based "screening-saturation" model that predicts residual yield at every point along the ranked list.
methodsUsing a previously validated Support Vector Machine (SVM) that ranks notes for pediatric status epilepticus, the authors first trained four predictive models: linear, polynomial, and support-vector regressions plus a lightweight neural net, on notes from 2013. Then, these models were tested on data from 2020. The target was to identify the proportion of true positives (ESE or RSE) expected below any score threshold.
resultsPolynomial regression offered the best balance of generalizability and interpretability, demonstrating a strong predictive performance even under temporal data shifts. On 2020 notes, a 20% yield threshold captured 78.1% of positives after reviewing 14.6% of records (1,118/7,636), which is equivalent to an 85.4% reduction in manual annotations (i.e., 6,518 fewer).
conclusionThe proposed scalable, model-agnostic framework turns AI scores into actionable staffing decisions in clinical workflows. This screening-saturation model integrates with clinician-in-the-loop (CITL) tools and readily adapts across medical domains requiring lean chart review.
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.