ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Identifying Family Relationships from Electronic Health Records: A Machine Learning Approach.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To develop and evaluate machine learning methods for automated identification of family relationships from electronic health records (EHRs). We employed Random Forest classifiers to identify five relationship types: Mother-Child, Father-Child, Sibling-Sibling, Twin-Twin, and Partner-Partner, using a four-stage iterative refinement process to improve precision for patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and healthcare applications. Materials and Methods: We used two large-scale Indiana datasets: the Indiana Network for Patient Care (INPC), comprising approximately 15 million unique individuals across approximately 45 million medical records, and the Indiana Natality dataset (birth certificates, 1970-2024), which served as the gold standard. Positive cases were derived by linking verified relationships from Natality records to INPC using a shared Global Identifier. Negative cases were drawn from a three-tier blocking strategy combined with sliding window restriction and similarity scoring, which together reduced the comparison space from over 10 Results: The models achieved precision of 0.92 to 1.00, recall of 0.97 to 1.00, and F1 scores of 0.94 to 1.00 across all relationship types (Mother-Child 0.97, Father-Child 0.98, Sibling-Sibling 0.98, Twin-Twin 1.00, Partner-Partner 0.94). Between 15% and 78% of Natality-verified relationships lacked any shared contact information in INPC and were structurally undetectable by record linkage; restricting training and evaluation to linkable pairs improved precision for four of the five models, and training-data refinement improved F1-scores by a further 0.02-0.04 for the Mother-Child, Father-Child, and Sibling models. High-confidence predictions (probability ≥ 0.9) captured 77-99% of true positives. Age difference was the primary predictor for parent-child and twin relationships, while phone number similarity was most important for siblings. Discussion: The framework identifies family relationships from standard demographic fields available in most EHR systems. The iterative refinement approach shows how systematic error analysis can guide methodological improvements. Training-data refinement addresses a constraint in EHR-based family linkage: not all verified biological relationships have overlapping demographic footprints in healthcare data. Unlike rule-based approaches, the framework provides probability scores that enable configurable deployment thresholds. Conclusion: The Random Forest models demonstrate high performance suitable for large-scale research deployment and are ready for testing in clinical applications rather than immediate widespread clinical use. The methodology can be adapted to other EHR systems, supporting family-centered study design in patient-centered outcomes research.
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.