ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Scalable Identification of Clinically Relevant Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Documents in Large-Scale Electronic Health Record Datasets With a Lightweight Natural Language Processing Model: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The widespread adoption of electronic health records has resulted in the generation of large volumes of clinical notes. Learning algorithms and large language models can be trained on these resources, but they are susceptible to noise-irrelevant or noninformative data. This sensitivity can lead to significant challenges, including performance degradation and the generation of inaccurate predictions or "hallucinations." This study addresses a critical challenge in clinical informatics: efficiently filtering millions of documents for relevance before advanced language model processing, particularly in resource-constrained environments. Objective: We present a novel framework for determining document relevance in clinical settings using a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) dataset. Methods: We developed a novel framework using weak supervision and domain-expert heuristics to generate "silver standard" labels for training data and gold standard expert-annotated labels, creating 2 datasets to optimize the model during the development phase and subsequent testing phase. Various text representation techniques (bag of words, term frequency-inverse document frequency, lightweight document embeddings, compression-based features, and Unified Medical Language System concept extraction) were evaluated. These representations were used to train random forest, extreme gradient boosting, and k-nearest neighbor classifiers. Models were optimized on a small expert-annotated dataset and evaluated on a held-out test set. Results: The combination of lightweight document embedding with a random forest classifier demonstrated the best performance, achieving a precision of 0.73, recall of 0.86, and F1-score of 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.87) for identifying relevant COPD documents. This significantly outperformed baseline heuristics (precision=0.70; recall=0.38; F1-score=0.50, 95% CI 0.43-0.56) and other tested methods. Conclusions: Our study presents a novel framework for identifying COPD-relevant clinical documents using lightweight embedding and machine learning. This approach effectively filters pertinent documents, enhancing information retrieval precision. The framework's scalability and minimal annotation needs make it promising for diverse health care applications, potentially optimizing clinical outcomes through efficient document selection for data-driven decision support systems.
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.