<i>ChartWalk</i>: Navigating large collections of text notes in electronic health records for clinical chart review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before seeing a patient for the first time, healthcare workers will typically conduct a comprehensive clinical chart review of the patient's electronic health record (EHR). Within the diverse documentation pieces included there, text notes are among the most important and thoroughly perused segments for this task; and yet they are among the least supported medium in terms of content navigation and overview. In this work, we delve deeper into the task of clinical chart review from a data visualization perspective and propose a hybrid graphics+text approach via ChartWalk, an interactive tool to support the review of text notes in EHRs. We report on our iterative design process grounded in input provided by a diverse range of healthcare professionals, with steps including: (a) initial requirements distilled from interviews and the literature, (b) an interim evaluation to validate design decisions, and (c) a task-based qualitative evaluation of our final design. We contribute lessons learned to better support the design of tools not only for clinical chart reviews but also other healthcare-related tasks around medical text analysis.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it