ArticleJAMIA open2026
Automating chart review for identification of infected patients using natural language processing.
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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Expert clinician chart review is the most accurate method to identify patients with infection but is laborious and costly. We aimed to develop and externally validate machine-learning models using structured and unstructured data to identify infection in hospitalized patients compared to chart review. Materials and Methods: Adult inpatient encounters at 2 health systems (2006-2016) were manually annotated for suspected infection on admission. Data from one site were used to develop gradient-boosted machine-learning models. Structured features included labs, vital signs, and nursing assessments. Unstructured clinical notes were converted to concept unique identifiers (CUIs) using the clinical Text Analysis and Knowledge Extraction System. Unimodal and multimodal models were tuned to maximize the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) in the derivation site through cross-validation. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed in the external validation site. Results: Of the 3014 included admissions, 677 (22.5%) were classified as having suspected infection on admission. A multimodal model combining n-gram TF-IDF and structured data demonstrated the best performance, significantly outperforming the structured data only model (AUROC 0.88 vs 0.82, Discussion and Conclusion: Our results highlight the value of unstructured text data for developing models that accurately replicate chart reviews in identifying patients with infection. By expediting the annotation of infection cases, our models can facilitate epidemiological research and the curation of datasets necessary for developing clinical decision support systems for early sepsis detection.
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.