Cited by 17Gun Ownership and Violence ResearchMachine Learning in HealthcareMedical Coding and Health Information

Classifying firearm injury intent in electronic hospital records using natural language processing

Open access
MacPhaul, Erin, Zhou, Li, Mooney, Stephen J., Azrael, Deborah, Bowen, Andrew, Rowhani-Rahbar, Ali, Yenduri, Ravali, Barber, Catherine +2 more·2023·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

Importance: International Classification of Diseases–coded hospital discharge data do not accurately reflect whether firearm injuries were caused by assault, unintentional injury, self-harm, legal intervention, or were of undetermined intent. Applying natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) techniques to electronic health record (EHR) narrative text could be associated with improved accuracy of firearm injury intent data. Objective: To assess the accuracy with which an ML model identified firearm injury intent. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional retrospective EHR review was conducted at 3 level I trauma centers, 2 from health care institutions in Boston, Massachusetts, and 1 from Seattle, Washington, between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2019; data analysis was performed from January 18, 2021, to August 22, 2022. A total of 1915 incident cases of firearm injury in patients presenting to emergency departments at the model development institution and 769 from the external validation institution with a firearm injury code assigned according to International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM), in discharge data were included. Exposures: Classification of firearm injury intent. Main Outcomes and Measures: Intent classification accuracy by the NLP model was compared with ICD codes assigned by medical record coders in discharge data. The NLP model extracted intent-relevant features from narrative text that were then used by a gradient-boosting classifier to determine the intent of each firearm injury. Classification accuracy was evaluated against intent assigned by the research team. The model was further validated using an external data set. Results: The NLP model was evaluated in 381 patients presenting with firearm injury at the model development site (mean [SD] age, 39.2 [13.0] years; 348 [91.3%] men) and 304 patients at the external development site (mean [SD] age, 31.8 [14.8] years; 263 [86.5%] men). The model proved more accurate than medical record coders in assigning intent to firearm injuries at the model development site (accident F-score, 0.78 vs 0.40; assault F-score, 0.90 vs 0.78). The model maintained this improvement on an external validation set from a second institution (accident F-score, 0.64 vs 0.58; assault F-score, 0.88 vs 0.81). While the model showed some degradation between institutions, retraining the model using data from the second institution further improved performance on that site’s records (accident F-score, 0.75; assault F-score, 0.92). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that NLP ML can be used to improve the accuracy of firearm injury intent classification compared with ICD-coded discharge data, particularly for cases of accident and assault intents (the most prevalent and commonly misclassified intent types). Future research could refine this model using larger and more diverse data sets.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.5870

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Advanced computational techniques, such as ML and natural language processing, are promising ways to address diagnostic classification problems where issues with ICD coding persist.

    “Advanced computational techniques, such as ML and natural language processing (NLP), are promising ways to address diagnostic classification problems where issues with ICD coding persist.11,15”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. [3]Barber C, Goralnick E, Miller M. The problem with ICD-coded firearm injuries. JAMA Intern Med. 2021; 181(8): 1132- 1133. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.0382 33779677 · DOI
  2. [4]Barber C, Cook PJ, Parker ST. The emerging infrastructure of US firearms injury data. Prev Med. 2022; 165(pt A): 107129. 35803350
  3. [5]Miller M, Azrael D, Yenduri R,. Assessment of the accuracy of firearm injury intent coding at 3 US hospitals. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(12): e2246429. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.46429 36512356 PMC9856424 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [6]Kaufman EJ, Delgado MK. The epidemiology of firearm injuries in the US: the need for comprehensive, real-time, actionable data. JAMA. 2022; 328(12): 1177- 1178. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.16894 36166012 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [8]Patel SJ, Badolato GM, Parikh K, Iqbal SF, Goyal MK. Sociodemographic factors and outcomes by intent of firearm injury. Pediatrics. 2021; 147(4): e2020011957. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-011957 33782104 · DOI
  6. [9]Peek-Asa C, Butcher B, Cavanaugh JE. Cost of hospitalization for firearm injuries by firearm type, intent, and payer in the United States. Inj Epidemiol. 2017; 4(1): 20. doi: 10.1186/s40621-017-0120-0 28721637 PMC5515719 · DOI
  7. [10]Schnippel K, Burd-Sharps S, Miller TR, Lawrence BA, Swedler DI. Nonfatal firearm injuries by intent in the United States: 2016-2018 hospital discharge records from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. West J Emerg Med. 2021; 22(3): 462- 470. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2021.3.51925 34125015 PMC8203029 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [11]Kalesan B, Zuo Y, Xuan Z,. A multi-decade joinpoint analysis of firearm injury severity. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2018; 3(1): e000139. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2017-000139 29766128 PMC5887778 · DOI
  9. [12]Avraham JB, Frangos SG, DiMaggio CJ. The epidemiology of firearm injuries managed in US emergency departments. Inj Epidemiol. 2018; 5(1): 38. doi: 10.1186/s40621-018-0168-5 30318556 PMC6186529 · DOI
  10. [13]Coupet E Jr, Huang Y, Delgado MK. US emergency department encounters for firearm injuries according to presentation at trauma vs nontrauma centers. JAMA Surg. 2019; 154(4): 360- 362. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.4640 30673067 PMC6484801 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [14]Kalesan B, Siracuse JJ, Cook A, Prosperi M, Fagan J, Galea S. Prevalence and hospital charges from firearm injuries treated in US emergency departments from 2006 to 2016. Surgery. 2021; 169(5): 1188- 1198. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.11.009 33384161 · DOI
  12. [15]Cook A, Osler T, Hosmer D,. Gunshot wounds resulting in hospitalization in the United States: 2004-2013. Injury. 2017; 48(3): 621- 627. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.01.044 28173921 · DOI
  13. [16]Gani F, Sakran JV, Canner JK. Emergency department visits for firearm-related injuries in the United States, 2006-14. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017; 36(10): 1729- 1738. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0625 28971917 · DOI
  14. [18]Zhou L, Baughman AW, Lei VJ,. Identifying patients with depression using free-text clinical documents. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015; 216: 629- 633. 26262127
  15. [19]Blackley SV, MacPhaul E, Martin B, Song W, Suzuki J, Zhou L. Using natural language processing and machine learning to identify hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2021; 2020: 233- 242. 33936395 PMC8075424
  16. [20]Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A,. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res. 2011; 12: 2825- 2830.
  17. [21]Parker ST. Estimating nonfatal gunshot injury locations with natural language processing and machine learning models. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(10): e2020664. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20664 33052403 PMC7557517 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MacPhaul, E., Zhou, L., Mooney, S. J., Azrael, D., Bowen, A., Rowhani-Rahbar, A., Yenduri, R., Barber, C., Goralnick, E., & Miller, M.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Firearm Injury & Policy Research Program, University of Washington, Seattle
  • Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, Matthew
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2023-04-06
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
e235870
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4362657938
Cited by
17
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 1
FWCI
4.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Gun Ownership and Violence Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
firearm injuries, assault, self-harm, unintentional injuries, legal intervention, electronic health records, natural language processing, hospital discharge data, gradient boosting classifier, external validation, trauma centers, emergency department presentation, gunshot wounds, blunt trauma, penetrating trauma
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Firearms, Hospital Records, Humans, Male, Natural Language Processing, Retrospective Studies, Wounds, Gunshot, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review