ArticleStudies in health technology and informatics2026
Can NLP Detect Loneliness in Electronic Health Records? A Proof-of-Concept Study.
Article in Studies in health technology and 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Loneliness is clinically important but under-documented in electronic health records (EHRs), posing challenges for secondary use and computational phenotyping. This study evaluated whether natural language processing (NLP) methods can detect and classify loneliness severity from clinical notes. Patients with a loneliness survey (mild, moderate, severe) were identified, and notes within six months prior to the survey were retrieved. An expert-expanded lexicon was applied, and transformer models (RoBERTa, ClinicalBERT, Longformer) were fine-tuned for loneliness severity classification. Large language model-based summarization of social and psychiatric history was also tested as an alternative input representation. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, weighted-F1, and per-class F1. All models achieved modest accuracy (0.3 to 0.7), and struggled to identify severe loneliness, reflecting sparse and inconsistent documentation even among surveyed patients. While summarization marginally improved accuracy, gains primarily reflected mild predictions. Manual review of 100 social worker notes from severely lonely patients found explicit mentions of loneliness in only two cases, confirming that relevant documentation is exceedingly rare. These findings demonstrate that model performance is constrained by the sparse and inconsistent documentation of loneliness in EHRs, rather than by deficiencies in the modeling approach itself.
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.