Extracting Clinical Features From Dictated Ambulatory Consult Notes Using a Commercially Available Natural Language Processing Tool: Pilot, Retrospective, Cross-Sectional Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in clinical practice holds the promise of improving care and advancing research by serving as a rich source of data, but most EHRs allow clinicians to enter data in a text format without much structure. Natural language processing (NLP) may reduce reliance on manual abstraction of these text data by extracting clinical features directly from unstructured clinical digital text data and converting them into structured data. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the performance of a commercially available NLP tool for extracting clinical features from free-text consult notes. METHODS: We conducted a pilot, retrospective, cross-sectional study of the accuracy of NLP from dictated consult notes from our tuberculosis clinic with manual chart abstraction as the reference standard. Consult notes for 130 patients were extracted and processed using NLP. We extracted 15 clinical features from these consult notes and grouped them a priori into categories of simple, moderate, and complex for analysis. RESULTS: For the primary outcome of overall accuracy, NLP performed best for features classified as simple, achieving an overall accuracy of 96% (95% CI 94.3-97.6). Performance was slightly lower for features of moderate clinical and linguistic complexity at 93% (95% CI 91.1-94.4), and lowest for complex features at 91% (95% CI 87.3-93.1). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study support the use of NLP for extracting clinical features from dictated consult notes in the setting of a tuberculosis clinic. Further research is needed to fully establish the validity of NLP for this and other purposes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".