Assessing the capture of sociodemographic information in electronic medical records to inform clinical decision making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing need to document sociodemographic factors in electronic medical records to produce representative cohorts for medical research and to perform focused research for potentially vulnerable populations. The objective of this work was to assess the content of family physicians' electronic medical records and characterize the quality of the documentation of sociodemographic characteristics. Descriptive statistics were reported for each sociodemographic characteristic. The association between the completeness rates of the sociodemographic data and the various clinics, electronic medical record vendors, and physician characteristics was analyzed. Supervised machine learning models were used to determine the absence or presence of each characteristic for all adult patients over the age of 18 in the database. Documentation of marital status (51.0%) and occupation (47.2%) were significantly higher compared to the rest of the variables. Race (1.4%), sexual orientation (2.5%), and gender identity (0.8%) had the lowest documentation rates with a 97.5% missingness rate or higher. The correlation analysis for vendor type demonstrated that there was significant variation in the availability of marital and occupation information between vendors (χ2 > 6.0, P < 0.05). Variability in documentation between clinics indicated that the majority of characteristics exhibited high variation in completeness rates with the highest variation for occupation (median: 47.2, interquartile range: 60.6%) and marital status (median: 45.6, interquartile: 59.7%). Finally, physician sex, years since a physician graduated, and whether a physician was a foreign vs a Canadian medical graduate were significantly associated with documentation rates of place of birth, citizenship status, occupation, and education in the electronic medical records. Our findings suggest a crucial need to implement better documentation strategies for sociodemographic information in the healthcare setting. To improve completeness rates, healthcare systems should monitor, encourage, enforce, or incentivize sociodemographic data collection standards.
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 | 0.035 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".