Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41174739›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Clinician-in-the-loop screening saturation: predicting annotation yield for efficient EHR review.

Assaf Landschaft, Leena Abdelmoity, Fatemeh Mohammad Alizadeh Chafjiri, Molly Ann Puckett, Jennifer Gettings, Tobias Loddenkemper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Assaf Landschaft *Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. assaf.landschaft@childrens.harvard.edu.
Leena Abdelmoity *Division of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Fatemeh Mohammad Alizadeh ChafjiriDivision of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Molly Ann PuckettDivision of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Jennifer GettingsDivision of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Tobias LoddenkemperDivision of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Electronic Health RecordsNatural Language ProcessingSupport Vector MachineHumansRetrospective StudiesAnnotation efficiencyArtificial intelligenceClinician in the loopElectronic health recordsMachine learningNatural language processingRetrospective cohort studiesStatus epilepticusSupport vector machineYield prediction

Identifiers

PMID41174739
PMCPMC12577255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.