ArticleNature communications2026
A machine-assisted framework for systematic error analysis in clinical concept extraction.
Article in Nature communications, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Error analysis is critical for evaluating and improving clinical natural language processing (NLP) models, yet no standardized framework exists to support systematic error analysis for clinical concept extraction. Here we present MedError, a machine-assisted, human-in-the-loop framework integrating a validated error taxonomy, large language model (LLM)-assisted classification, and a structured annotation workflow. MedError is developed from 1187 unique errors manually curated from 4227 clinical notes across three institutions, spanning 25 error types and 48 clinical concept categories. Here we show that MedError supports both single-site and federated multisite error analysis through three complementary evaluations. First, benchmarking of six proprietary and open-source LLMs shows that automated error classification alone is insufficient without human involvement. Second, MedError-derived error feedback improves NLP extraction performance by 34-62% over an unstructured baseline across 11 cognitive status concepts. Third, prospective external validation at two independent institutions demonstrates improved agreement with expert-adjudicated annotations by up to 30% (McNemar exact test, p = 0.035, φ = 0.38) and reduced annotation time by 26-33%, providing a systematic and practical framework for real-world clinical NLP deployment.
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.