Improving musculoskeletal care with AI enhanced triage through data driven screening of referral letters
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Abstract Background Thirty percent of General Practitioners' (GP) consultations concern musculoskeletal symptoms (MSK). Many of those are referred to a rheumatology outpatient clinic. Triaging the GPs’ referral letters is an important task to prioritise patients in need of early treatment such as those likely to have rheumatoid arthritis. The letters may provide valuable insights into patients' conditions beyond the reasons for referral described by the GPs. Objective We set out to build a Machine Learning (ML) pipeline using only GP referral letters to accelerate prioritisation of referrals by identifying: I) RA, II) osteoarthritis, III) fibromyalgia and IV) patients who remain under the care of a rheumatologist for > 3 months. Methods We collected 8,044 valid referral letters from 5,728 patients across 12 different clinics affiliated to Reumazorg Zuid West Nederland, splitting the data into a development set (Roosendaal and Goes; n = 7,213) and an external replication set (remaining centres; n = 831). We preprocessed the narrative data by I) removing named entities, II) batch correction, III) and transforming the data to a vector with term frequency by inverse document frequency. For each disease we trained an eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) model, which we fine tuned across 1000 epochs with a Bayesian optimization technique, and validated on a hold out data set. Next, we assessed the generalizability to other centres by applying our models on the external data. Finally, we compared the prioritisation ability of our RA-classifier versus the current referral order to assess the additive value of ML to patient triaging. Results The pipeline produced models with a consistent performance in the replication set. Our classifiers did not merely ‘extract’ the suspected diagnosis by the GP, rather it identifies implicit structure in the text indicative of the disease in question. We achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.78 (CI:0.74–0.83) for RA, 0.71 (CI: 0.67–0.74) for osteoarthritis, 0.81 (CI: 0.77–0.85) for fibromyalgia and 0.63 (CI: 0.61–0.66) for chronic follow-up. For RA we could define a cut-off that would preselect two-thirds of all RA patients, while excluding two thirds of non-RA patients, both in holdout and final test set. Finally, our classifier was able to prioritise RA over non-RA cases (P < 0.001), while the manual referral system could not significantly differentiate between RA and non-RA. Conclusion Prior to a rheumatology outpatient clinic visit, we could effectively identify patients with high risk for RA, Osteoarthritis and Fibromyalgia. Patients that were chronically followed-up at the rheumatology clinic were difficult to predict, likely due to patients’ heterogeneity. For all four classification tasks we could improve visit prioritisation compared to current waiting times. Overall, our algorithm has potential to improve care efficiency, reduce clinicians' workload, and facilitate early specialised care. Future research is needed to integrate these models into a comprehensive decision support tool for clinical use.
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?
LLMs represent a rapidly emerging research paradigm in diabetic complication prediction.
“Currently, LLMs represent a rapidly emerging research paradigm in diabetic complication prediction, with growing studies exploring their potential lies in processing unstructured clinical text [169], enabling personalized health management via conversational agents [170], and supporting biomedical knowledge discovery [171].”
From Artificial intelligence-powered prediction of diabetic complications: from clinical data to molecular omics (2026) · cites this paper as [169]
The Introduction (page not available) says that NLP and LLMs have potential for analyzing unstructured referral letters, supporting the point attached to [169] about processing clinical text. But the study concerns musculoskeletal triage, not diabetic complication prediction; its Methods describe an NLP pipeline and XGBoost prediction models rather than an LLM-based prediction study. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- [2]van Delft, E. et al. Impact of triage by a rheumatologist on appropriateness of referrals from primary to secondary care: a cluster randomized trial. Scand. J. Rheumatol. 52, 403–411 (2022). 36173970 · DOI
- [3]Lynch, M. E. et al. A systematic review of the effect of waiting for treatment for chronic pain. Pain 136, 97–116 (2008). 17707589 · DOI
- [5]Miloslavsky, E. M. & Marston, B. The Challenge of Addressing the Rheumatology Workforce Shortage. J. Rheumatol. 49, 555–557 (2022). 35428725 · DOI
- [6]Raita, Y. et al. Emergency department triage prediction of clinical outcomes using machine learning models. Crit. Care 23, 64 (2019). 30795786 PMC6387562 · DOI
- [7]Klug, M. et al. A Gradient Boosting Machine Learning Model for Predicting Early Mortality in the Emergency Department Triage: Devising a Nine-Point Triage Score. J. GEN INTERN MED 35, 220–227 (2020). 31677104 PMC6957629 · DOI
- [8]Williams, B. The National Early Warning Score: From concept to NHS implementation. Clin. Med. 22, 499–505 (2022). PMC9761416 36427887 · DOI
- [9]Scaioli, G. et al. Communication between general practitioners and medical specialists in the referral process: a cross-sectional survey in 34 countries. BMC Fam. Pr. 21, 54 (2020). PMC7079351 32183771 · DOI
- [10]Raza, K. et al. Delays in assessment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: variations across Europe. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 70, 1822–1825 (2011). 21821867 · DOI
- [11]Niemantsverdriet, E., Dougados, M., Combe, B. & van der Helm-van Mil, A. H. M. Referring early arthritis patients within 6 weeks versus 12 weeks after symptom onset: an observational cohort study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2, e332–e338 (2020). 38273596 · DOI
- [12]Huggard, H., Koh, Y. S., Dobbie, G., & Zhang, E. Detecting concept drift in medical triage. Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Xi’an, China, 25–30 July, 1733–1736 (2020).
- [13]Omar, M. et al. Advancing rheumatology with natural language processing: insights and prospects from a systematic review. Rheumatol. Adv. Pract. 8, rkae120 (2024). 39399162 PMC11467191 · DOI
- [14]Krusche, M. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a large language model in rheumatology: comparison of physician and ChatGPT-4. Rheumatol. Int 44, 303–306 (2024). 37742280 PMC10796566 · DOI · Paper page
- [15]Fudickar, S. et al. Natural Language Processing of Referral Letters for Machine Learning–Based Triaging of Patients With Low Back Pain to the Most Appropriate Intervention: Retrospective Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 26, e46857 (2024). 38289669 PMC10865208 · DOI
- [16]Wang, B., Li, W., Bradlow, A., Bazuaye, E. & Chan, A. T. Y. Improving triaging from primary care into secondary care using heterogeneous data-driven hybrid machine learning. Decis. Support Syst. 166, 113899 (2023). · DOI
- [17]Thoms, B. L., Bonnell, L. N., Tompkins, B., Nevares, A. & Lau, C. Predictors of inflammatory arthritis among new rheumatology referrals: a cross-sectional study. Rheumatol. Adv. Pract. 7, rkad067 (2023). 37641692 PMC10460484 · DOI
- [18]Preston, C., Cheater, F., Baker, R. & Hearnshaw, H. Left in limbo: patients’ views on care across the primary/secondary interface. Qual. health care 8, 16–21 (1999). 10557664 PMC2483626 · DOI
- [20]Nell, V. P. K. et al. Benefit of very early referral and very early therapy with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 43, 906–914 (2004). 15113999 · DOI
- [21]van der Linden, M. P. et al. Long-term impact of delay in assessment of patients with early arthritis. Arthritis rheumatism 62, 3537–3546 (2010). 20722031 · DOI
- [22]Sun, X. et al. Text classification via large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08377 (2023). 10.48550/arXiv.2305.08377 · DOI
- [23]Tamang, S. et al. Practical Considerations for Developing Clinical Natural Language Processing Systems for Population Health Management and Measurement. JMIR Med. Inform. 11, e37805 (2023). 36595345 PMC9846439 · DOI
- [24]Engels, Y. et al. Developing a framework of, and quality indicators for, general practice management in Europe. Fam. Pract. 22, 215–222 (2005). 15722398 · DOI
- [25]Yang, J. et al. Generalizability assessment of AI models across hospitals in a low-middle and high income country. Nat. Commun. 15, 8270 (2024). 39333515 PMC11436917 · DOI
- [26]Tsui, F. R. et al. Natural language processing and machine learning of electronic health records for prediction of first-time suicide attempts. JAMIA open 4, ooab011 (2021). 33758800 PMC7966858 · DOI
- [27]Worsham, J., & Kalita, J. (2018). Genre identification and the compositional effect of genre in literature. In: Proceedings of the 27thInternational Conference on Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, 1963–1973 (2018).
- [28]Grinsztajn, L., Oyallon, E. & Varoquaux, G. Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on typical tabular data? Adv. neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35, 507–520 (2022).
- [29]Toman, M., Tesar, R. & Jezek, K. Influence of word normalization on text classification. Proc. InSciT 4, 354–358 (2006).
- [30]Margetis, G., Ntoa, S., Antona, M., & Stephanidis, C. Human-centered design of artificial intelligence. In G. Salvendy & W. Karwowski (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, Chapter 42, page 1085 (2021).
- [31]Saito, T. & Rehmsmeier, M. The precision-recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets. PloS one 10, e0118432 (2015). 25738806 PMC4349800 · DOI · Paper page
- [32]Berendsen, A. J. et al. How do general practitioners and specialists value their mutual communication? A survey. BMC Health Serv. Res 9, 143 (2009). 19664238 PMC2736936 · DOI
- [33]Faviez, C. et al. Diagnosis support systems for rare diseases: a scoping review. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 15, 1–16 (2022). PMC7164220 32299466
- [34]De Vries, W. et al. Bertje: A Dutch Bert model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.09582 (2019). · arXiv
- [35]Schweter, S., & Akbik, A. Flert: Document-level features for named entity recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06993 (2020). · arXiv
- [36]Behdenna, A. et al. pyComBat, a Python tool for batch effects correction in high-throughput molecular data using empirical Bayes methods. BMC Bioinformatics. 24, 459 (2023). 38057718 PMC10701943 · DOI
- [37]Snoek, J., Larochelle, L. & Adams, R. P. Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst 4, 2951–2959 (2012).
- [38]Roth, A. E. The Shapley Value: Essays in Honor of Lloyd S. Shapley. Cambridge University Press (1988). ISBN-10:052136177X. 10.1017/CBO9780511528446 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Xie, X., Wu, C., Huang, Z., Zhou, Y., Huang, J., Dao, F., Yan, D., Deng, K., Lyu, H., Ma, C., et al. (2026) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbag083 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“…a rapidly emerging research paradigm in diabetic complication prediction, with growing studies exploring their potential lies in processing unstructured clinical text [169], enabling personalized health management via conversational agents [170], and supporting biomedical knowledge discovery [171].”
- Authors
- Maarseveen, T. D., Glas, H. K., Veris-van Dieren, J., van den Akker, E., & Knevel, R.
- Affiliations
- Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Knevel, Rachel
- Venue
- npj Digital Medicine
- Published
- 2025-02-14
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 98-98
- ISSN
- 2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11825706
- OpenAlex
- W4407452515
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 9
- FWCI
- 6.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- HORIZON EUROPE Health (101080711)
- HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council (101095052)
- ZonMw (40-00703-97-19069)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- musculoskeletal care, referral prioritization, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, referral letters, machine learning classification, triage, clinical decision support, rheumatology referral, long-term care
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