Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41341247›Full record

ReviewJMIR neurotechnology2024

Direct Clinical Applications of Natural Language Processing in Common Neurological Disorders: Scoping Review.

Ilana Lefkovitz, Samantha Walsh, Leah J Blank, Nathalie Jetté, Benjamin R Kummer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR neurotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

5 authors.

Ilana LefkovitzDepartment of Neurology Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York, NY United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8724-3798
Samantha WalshHunter College Libraries Hunter College, City University of New York New York, NY United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5040-6514
Leah J BlankDepartment of Neurology Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York, NY United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8719-6752
Nathalie JettéDepartment of Neurology Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York, NY United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1351-5866
Benjamin R KummerDepartment of Neurology Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York, NY United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1413-8014

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Natural language processing (NLP), a branch of artificial intelligence that analyzes unstructured language, is being increasingly used in health care. However, the extent to which NLP has been formally studied in neurological disorders remains unclear. Objective: We sought to characterize studies that applied NLP to the diagnosis, prediction, or treatment of common neurological disorders. Methods: This review followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) standards. The search was conducted using MEDLINE and Embase on May 11, 2022. Studies of NLP use in migraine, Parkinson disease, Alzheimer disease, stroke and transient ischemic attack, epilepsy, or multiple sclerosis were included. We excluded conference abstracts, review papers, as well as studies involving heterogeneous clinical populations or indirect clinical uses of NLP. Study characteristics were extracted and analyzed using descriptive statistics. We did not aggregate measurements of performance in our review due to the high variability in study outcomes, which is the main limitation of the study. Results: In total, 916 studies were identified, of which 41 (4.5%) met all eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Of the 41 included studies, the most frequently represented disorders were stroke and transient ischemic attack (n=20, 49%), followed by epilepsy (n=10, 24%), Alzheimer disease (n=6, 15%), and multiple sclerosis (n=5, 12%). We found no studies of NLP use in migraine or Parkinson disease that met our eligibility criteria. The main objective of NLP was diagnosis (n=20, 49%), followed by disease phenotyping (n=17, 41%), prognostication (n=9, 22%), and treatment (n=4, 10%). In total, 18 (44%) studies used only machine learning approaches, 6 (15%) used only rule-based methods, and 17 (41%) used both. Conclusions: We found that NLP was most commonly applied for diagnosis, implying a potential role for NLP in augmenting diagnostic accuracy in settings with limited access to neurological expertise. We also found several gaps in neurological NLP research, with few to no studies addressing certain disorders, which may suggest additional areas of inquiry. Trial Registration: Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42021228703; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=228703.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecardiovascularcerebrovascular diseasedeep learningdiagnosisepilepsyheadache disordersmachine learningmigrainemultiple sclerosisnatural language processingneurologicalneurological disorderneurologyNLPParkinsonParkinson diseasepredictionscoping reviewstroketexttransient ischemic attacktreatmentunstructured

Identifiers

PMID41341247
PMCPMC12671331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.