ArticlePloS one2026
Applying machine learning and natural language processing to patient safety event reports: Identifying patterns of cardiovascular diagnostic errors.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the utility of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) techniques to identify unsafe conditions leading to cardiovascular diagnostic errors using patient safety event (PSE) reports data.
methodsPSE reports from January 2016 to August 2021 from a multi-hospital healthcare system in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States were included in this study. To have the true cardiovascular diagnostic errors labels for PSE reports, each individual PSE report was manually reviewed to find clinician-reported narratives describing current definitions of cardiovascular diagnostic errors. The PSE reports which contained cardiovascular diagnostic errors-related narratives were labeled as one and zero otherwise. Four binary ML models were employed to identify cardiovascular diagnostic errors narratives and common features from annotated PSE reports data: (1) simple logistic regression, (2) elastic net, (3) XGBoost, and (4) deep neural networks.
resultsXGBoost outperformed the rest of the models in identifying cardiovascular diagnostic errors -related reports and achieved high performance metrics on the testing data (AUROC = 0.914, specificity = 0.982, PPV = 0.866, accuracy = 0.929, F-1 score = 0.738, and AUPRC = 0.783). Pacemaker emerged as a significant signal for cardiovascular diagnostic errors in our PSE reports. Our analysis demonstrated that ordering MRI for patients with pacemaker was a frequent theme among cardiovascular diagnostic errors-related PSE reports containing the word pacemaker. Order, EKG, cardiac, and chest were the five most important features in identifying cardiovascular diagnostic errors events. These words were utilized in explaining heart conditions, associated care process, and related safety incidents.
conclusionsFindings from our study demonstrates the feasibility of ML and NLP techniques in identifying cardiovascular diagnostic errors-related reports among the existing PSE data sources. However, validation in external healthcare systems is needed before broader application.
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.