Extracting Data from the Electronic Health Record of Patients with ADHD Reveals Pediatricians' Discussions of Educational Support and Document Collection.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary care physicians (PCPs) have an important role in the identification and management of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). There is a paucity of research on PCPs' practices related to the discussion of educational interventions. We conducted a retrospective chart review using Natural Language Processing to extract data on how often PCPs in an outpatient clinic: 1) discuss educational support with patients and caregivers; and 2) obtain educational records. About three-quarters of patients had at least one term related to educational support included in at least one note, but only 13 percent of patients had at least one educational record uploaded into the electronic health record (EHR). There was no association between having an educational document uploaded into the EHR and inclusion of a term related to educational support in a note. Almost half (48 percent) of these records were unclearly labeled. Further education of PCPs is warranted to increase discussions of educational support and obtaining educational records, as is collaboration with health information management professionals around labeling.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".