ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Clinical sentiment analysis of ICU notes: a dataset and a comparison of lexicon and clinical language model methods.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Sentiment to Signal: Narrative-Physiology Discordance as a Testable Target for Artificial Intelligence in Critical Care.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneral-domain sentiment models have been found ineffective in distinguishing positivity and negativity in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) clinical notes and domain-specific sentiment models are recommended. Although there are multiple common approaches to sentiment analysis, there has been little work comparing and evaluating the effectiveness of specialized models, largely due to the difficulty of recruiting clinical annotators and of accessing clinical sentiment data. This study has three contributions: (1) MIMIC-III-Ext-Notes-Sentiment: the first public ICU-specific ground- truth dataset labeled by clinicians for investigating clinical sentiment polarity in ICU clinical notes. (2) SentimentICUModel: an effective model for classifying clinical sentiment in ICU narratives on the ground truth. (3) A guiding comparison of the effectiveness of a range of approaches to clinical sentiment classification on the dataset.
methodsWe recruited five clinicians to annotate notes for the ground truth. Annotators indicated which pieces of note text influenced their labeling. Six clinical-specific models were compared on the ground truth.
resultsThe task of annotation was challenging due to clinicians' workload and spanned 15 months. The ground truth data was formed based on inter-annotator agreement analysis. Clinicians' extracts similarity aligned with their agreement level. Clinical language models provide comparable accuracy (up to 82%), with top score achieved by ClinicalT5 which is being released as SentimentICUModel. They outperform keyword-based lexicon (p[Formula: see text], [95% CI, -0.47, -0.28]).
conclusionClinical language models have demonstrated effectiveness in identifying clinical sentiment within clinical notes, enabling early detection of sudden changes and exploring different patterns in patients' ICU stays.
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.