ArticleJAMIA open2026
Using clinical notes to identify children with speech-language delay and understand differences in diagnostic timing.
Article in JAMIA open, 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.
- Multimodal Training to Unimodal Deployment: Leveraging Unstructured Data During Training to Optimize Structured Data Only Deployment.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Speech-language delay (SLD) is a developmental condition often identified by pediatricians. While early intervention is recommended, it is common for pediatricians to take a "watch and wait" approach. We sought to assess whether there is discordance between documented concerns and diagnostic coding of SLD and whether discordances differ based on sociodemographic, clinical, and service utilization characteristics. Materials and methods: We generated an age, sex, payer and race/ethnicity matched cohort of children with and without coded SLD to train a BioClinicalBERT natural learning processing (NLP) model to identify SLD in clinical notes. We applied the model to a population-based test set of well-child visits with no prior SLD diagnosis. We analyzed factors for encounters where SLD was mentioned, but there was no associated ICD-10 code present. Results: The model attained AUCs of 0.98 (internal validation) and 0.99 (population-based test set). Among encounters where notes documented concerns, only 52% had an associated ICD-10 code. Among the remainder, 39% subsequently received a code (follow-up period up to 650 days), indicating at least 26% of SLD encounters have delayed diagnostic coding. Younger and privately-insured children were less likely to have an ICD-10 code when SLD was documented in notes. Younger children with more outpatient visits were more likely to receive a future SLD diagnosis. Discussion: NLP can effectively recognize SLD concern in clinical notes, helping to capture those with early documented concerns. Gaps between documentation and coding could suggest "watch and wait" approaches. Conclusion: Real world SLD research should consider potential discordance between documented concerns and diagnostic codes.
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.