ArticleJAMIA open2026
Using natural language processing and machine learning to identify social needs in patient medical notes: model training with balanced versus real-world datasets.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) approaches for identifying social needs in electronic health record (EHR) notes, using balanced versus real-world imbalanced datasets. Materials and Methods: A rule-based NLP framework using definite, non-negated keywords flagged social needs domains and "Any Social Need" in unstructured notes. Logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost models were trained under balanced and imbalanced prevalence and evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), F1, precision, recall, and specificity, with threshold sensitivity analyses. Results: On the imbalanced test set for any social need, the rule-based model achieved F1 0.373 (precision 0.484; recall 0.303; and specificity 0.978). On the balanced test set for any social need, XGBoost and logistic models achieved AUPRC 0.719 and 0.718, F1 0.438, and precision 0.944; random forest had AUPRC 0.714, F1 0.423, and precision 0.945. Under imbalanced evaluation, XGBoost led (AUPRC 0.319, F1 0.312, precision 0.839, recall 0.191, and specificity 0.998), followed by logistic (AUPRC 0.312 and F1 0.289) and random forest (AUPRC 0.305 and F1 0.282). Discussion: Balanced training inflated apparent performance, while under realistic class imbalance the ML models traded recall for very high precision, with XGBoost performing best but still lagging in sensitivity. Conclusion: These findings underscore the need to train and tune under real-world prevalence and to set thresholds based on use-case priorities (eg, maximizing precision for referrals versus improving recall for screening).
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.