Structured clinical documentation in the electronic medical record to improve quality and to support practice‐based research in epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Using the electronic medical record (EMR) to capture structured clinical data at the point of care would be a practical way to support quality improvement and practice-based research in epilepsy. METHODS: We describe our stepwise process for building structured clinical documentation support tools in the EMR that define best practices in epilepsy, and we describe how we incorporated these toolkits into our clinical workflow. RESULTS: These tools write notes and capture hundreds of fields of data including several score tests: Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Quality of Life in Epilepsy-10 items, Montreal Cognitive Assessment/Short Test of Mental Status, and Medical Research Council Prognostic Index. The tools summarize brain imaging, blood laboratory, and electroencephalography results, and document neuromodulation treatments. The tools provide Best Practices Advisories and other clinical decision support when appropriate. The tools prompt enrollment in a DNA biobanking study. We have thus far enrolled 231 patients for initial visits and are starting our first annual follow-up visits and provide a brief description of our cohort. SIGNIFICANCE: We are sharing these EMR tools and captured data with other epilepsy clinics as part of a Neurology Practice Based Research Network, and are using the tools to conduct pragmatic trials using subgroup-based adaptive designs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".