ArticleMedical cannabis and cannabinoids
Cannabis Use Documentation within the Electronic Health Record: A Use Case for Natural Language Processing Methods.
Article in Medical cannabis and cannabinoids. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recreational and medical cannabis use (CU) information is often available within the electronic health record (EHR) in a format that is impractical for health care provider use. Transformation of free-text EHR documentation in notes to discrete elements is possible using natural language processing (NLP) and has the potential to characterize CU efficiently. The objective of this study was to develop an NLP algorithm to identify CU documentation within unstructured EHR clinical notes. Methods: We identified EHR notes with cannabis-related terminologies through a keyword search among all Geisinger patients with at least one encounter between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2022. We trained four NLP models to classify CU documentation within notes into six categories based on time, context, and reliability, as identified through manual annotation. We compared the demographic characteristics of patients with a positive CU classification using the best-performing model to those of the studied sample. Results: Of the over 1.7 million eligible patients, 150,726 (8.6%) were flagged as cannabis users. Bio-ClinicalBERT, a transformer-based NLP model, achieved close to human performance in classifying CU (weighted precision = 91.4, recall = 93.3, and F score = 92.4). An unadjusted analysis showed that cannabis users had higher body mass index and were at least nine-fold more likely to use tobacco, alcohol, or illicit substances. Conclusion: Our study evaluated the prevalence of CU documentation across the entire corpus of EHR notes data based on available data without population segmentation over a 9.5-year period. The NLP methodologies used achieved performance close to that of human annotation and laid the foundation for identifying and classifying CU within unstructured data sources, with future applications in research and patient care.
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.