ArticlePloS one2026
Exploring data-driven algorithms to identify Lyme disease cases in electronic health records.
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
A tool capable of quickly and accurately identifying Lyme disease (LD) cases in endemic areas would have powerful applications in both research and public health. Using data from a single health system in an area with high LD incidence, we evaluated the feasibility and accuracy of data-driven algorithms to accurately identify LD cases based on easily extracted, structured data elements that are available in electronic health records (EHR). We used random forest and decision tree algorithms to explore the importance of various data elements and to investigate how different combinations of data elements accurately classified clinical events as either LD cases or non-cases. The data elements explored included patient demographics, International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, (ICD) codes, LD laboratory tests and their results, and antibiotic prescription orders. Our best performing algorithm was a manually constructed decision tree that incorporated information from three presence/absence variables: an LD ICD code (A69.2x), a positive LD serology test, and a doxycycline order occurring within 30 days of either of the other two elements, which achieved 82% accuracy, 93% sensitivity, 60% adjusted positive predictive value, 68% specificity, and 91% adjusted negative predictive value. Findings from this exploratory effort suggest that data-driven algorithms based on EHR elements hold promise to identify LD cases when detailed chart reviews are impractical. Further efforts may differentiate algorithms between confirmed and probable LD cases, pediatric and adult populations, and utilize text searching to improve accuracy.
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.