Cited by 19Machine Learning in HealthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesElectronic Health Records Systems

Mixed-methods evaluation of three natural language processing modeling approaches for measuring documented goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record

Open access
Uyeda, Alison M., Curtis, J. Randall, Engelberg, Ruth A., Brumback, Lyndia C., Guo, Yue, Sibley, James, Lober, William B., Cohen, Trevor +5 more·2022·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Abstract

Context Documented goals-of-care discussions are an important quality metric for patients with serious illness. Natural language processing (NLP) is a promising approach for identifying goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record (EHR). Objectives To compare three NLP modeling approaches for identifying EHR documentation of goals-of-care discussions and generate hypotheses about differences in performance. Methods We conducted a mixed-methods study to evaluate performance and misclassification for three NLP featurization approaches modeled with regularized logistic regression: bag-of-words (BOW), rule-based, and a hybrid approach. From a prospective cohort of 150 patients hospitalized with serious illness over 2018 to 2020, we collected 4391 inpatient EHR notes; 99 (2.3%) contained documented goals-of-care discussions. We used leave-one-out cross-validation to estimate performance by comparing pooled NLP predictions to human abstractors with receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) and precision-recall (PR) analyses. We qualitatively examined a purposive sample of 70 NLP-misclassified notes using content analysis to identify linguistic features that allowed us to generate hypotheses underpinning misclassification. Results All three modeling approaches discriminated between notes with and without goals-of-care discussions (AUC ROC: BOW, 0.907; rule-based, 0.948; hybrid, 0.965). Precision and recall were only moderate (precision at 70% recall: BOW, 16.2%; rule-based, 50.4%; hybrid, 49.3%; AUC PR: BOW, 0.505; rule-based, 0.579; hybrid, 0.599). Qualitative analysis revealed patterns underlying performance differences between BOW and rule-based approaches. Conclusion NLP holds promise for identifying EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions. However, the rarity of goals-of-care content in EHR data limits performance. Our findings highlight opportunities to optimize NLP modeling approaches, and support further exploration of different NLP approaches to identify goals-of-care discussions.

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 · 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2022.02.006

Cites

66 of 66 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?

  • The cost barrier of task-specific model development poses significant challenges for researchers interested in measuring multidimensional constructs whose definitions appropriately differ from study to study.

    “This cost barrier poses significant challenges for researchers interested in measuring multidimensional constructs for which definitions are likely to differ appropriately from study to study.37,38,35”

    From Assessment of a Zero-Shot Large Language Model in Measuring Documented Goals-of-Care Discussions (2026) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says training data for documented goals-of-care discussions are sparse and costly to acquire, and describes those discussions as multifaceted. The Methods (Data Source; page unavailable) says there is no consensus definition for identifying them in inpatient records and explains the study’s pragmatic definition. The paper does not explicitly extend this cost barrier to researchers measuring multidimensional constructs generally or say that definitions appropriately differ from study to study. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 1

  1. [50]Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Uyeda, A. M., Curtis, J. R., Engelberg, R. A., Brumback, L. C., Guo, Y., Sibley, J., Lober, W. B., Cohen, T., Torrence, J., Heywood, J., Paul, S. R., Kross, E. K., & Lee, R. Y.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Curtis, J. Randall
Venue
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
63
Issue
6
Pages
e713-e723
ISSN
0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4212982930
Cited by
19
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Palliative Care Research Center
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 AG062441, K12 HL137940)
  • Institute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington
  • Institute of Translational Health Sciences
  • Cambia Health Foundation
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR002319)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
goals of care discussions, natural language processing, electronic health records, serious illness, bag-of-words, quality metrics, misclassification analysis
MeSH terms
Goals, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Prospective Studies, 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