Applications of Natural Language Processing in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the current literature on the applications of natural language processing (NLP) within the field of otolaryngology. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL. METHODS: The preferred reporting Items for systematic reviews and meta-analyzes extension for scoping reviews checklist was followed. Databases were searched from the date of inception up to Dec 26, 2023. Original articles on the application of language-based models to otolaryngology patient care and research, regardless of publication date, were included. The studies were classified under the 2011 Oxford CEBM levels of evidence. RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-six papers with a median publication year of 2024 (range 1982, 2024) were included. Sixty-one percent (102/166) of studies used ChatGPT and were published in 2023 or 2024. Sixty studies used NLP for clinical education and decision support, 42 for patient education, 14 for electronic medical record improvement, 5 for triaging, 4 for trainee education, 4 for patient monitoring, 3 for telemedicine, and 1 for medical translation. For research, 37 studies used NLP for extraction, classification, or analysis of data, 17 for thematic analysis, 5 for evaluating scientific reporting, and 4 for manuscript preparation. CONCLUSION: The role of NLP in otolaryngology is evolving, with ChatGPT passing OHNS board simulations, though its clinical application requires improvement. NLP shows potential in patient education and post-treatment monitoring. NLP is effective at extracting data from unstructured or large data sets. There is limited research on NLP in trainee education and administrative tasks. Guidelines for NLP use in research are critical.
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 | 0.046 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".