Natural language processing for asthma ascertainment in different practice settings
Open accessAbstract
Background We developed and validated NLP-PAC, a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm based on predetermined asthma criteria (PAC) for asthma ascertainment using electronic health records at Mayo Clinic.Objective To adapt NLP-PAC in a different health care setting, Sanford Children Hospital, by assessing its external validity.Methods The study was designed as a retrospective cohort study that used a random sample of 2011-2012 Sanford Birth cohort (n = 595). Manual chart review was performed on the cohort for asthma ascertainment on the basis of the PAC. We then used half of the cohort as a training cohort (n = 298) and the other half as a blind test cohort to evaluate the adapted NLP-PAC algorithm. Association of known asthma-related risk factors with the Sanford-NLP algorithm-driven asthma ascertainment was tested.Results Among the eligible test cohort (n = 297), 160 (53%) were males, 268 (90%) white, and the median age was 2.3 years (range, 1.5-3.1 years). NLP-PAC, after adaptation, and the human abstractor identified 74 (25%) and 72 (24%) subjects, respectively, with 66 subjects identified by both approaches. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the NLP algorithm in predicting asthma status were 92%, 96%, 89%, and 97%, respectively. The known risk factors for asthma identified by NLP (eg, smoking history) were similar to the ones identified by manual chart review.Conclusions Successful implementation of NLP-PAC for asthma ascertainment in 2 different practice settings demonstrates the feasibility of automated asthma ascertainment leveraging electronic health record data with a potential to enable large-scale, multisite asthma studies to improve asthma care and research.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Computational phenotyping methods that leverage complex electronic health record data have been validated in different practice settings.
“To assist in the early identification and diagnosis of asthma, there are currently available innovative computational phenotyping methods that leverage complex electronic health record data that have been validated in different practice settings (32, 33).”
From Epidemiology of Asthma in Children and Adults (2019) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 62
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [17]Juhn YJ Kita H Yawn BP Boyce TG Yoo KH McGree ME Increased risk of serious pneumococcal disease in patients with asthma The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 2008 122 719 23 18790525 PMC2811957
- [18]Capili CR Hettinger A Rigelman-Hedberg N Fink L Boyce T Lahr B Increased risk of pertussis in patients with asthma The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 2012 129 957 63 22206778 PMC3321509
- [19]Bjur KA Lynch RL Fenta YA Yoo KH Jacobson RM Li X Assessment of the association between atopic conditions and tympanostomy tube placement in children Allergy and asthma proceedings: the official journal of regional and state allergy societies 2012 33 289 96 PMC3490504 22584196
- [27]Yunginger JW Reed CE O’Connell EJ Melton LJ 3rd O’Fallon WM Silverstein MD A community-based study of the epidemiology of asthma Incidence rates, 1964–1983 The American review of respiratory disease 1992 146 888 94 1416415
- Authors
- Wi, C.-I., Sohn, S., Ali, M., Krusemark, E., Ryu, E., Liu, H., & Juhn, Y. J.
- Affiliations
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Sanford Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Liu, Hongfang
- Juhn, Young J.
- Venue
- The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 126-131
- ISSN
- 2213-2198 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5733699
- OpenAlex
- W2626619241
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 3.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL126667)
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R21AI116839)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- natural language processing, electronic health records, algorithm adaptation, external validation, asthma risk factors, childhood asthma, Mayo Clinic
- MeSH terms
- Cigarette Smoking, Algorithms, Asthma, Child, Preschool, Delivery of Health Care, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Natural Language Processing, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Cohort Studies, 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