Cited by 32Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesMachine Learning in HealthcareMental Health via Writing

Extracting social support and social isolation information from clinical psychiatry notes: comparing a rule-based natural language processing system and a large language model

Open access
Patra, Braja Gopal, Lepow, Lauren A, Kasi Reddy Jagadeesh Kumar, Praneet, Vekaria, Veer, Sharma, Mohit Manoj, Adekkanattu, Prakash, Fennessy, Brian, Hynes, Gavin +12 more·2025·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Objectives: Social support (SS) and social isolation (SI) are social determinants of health (SDOH) associated with psychiatric outcomes. In electronic health records (EHRs), individual-level SS/SI is typically documented in narrative clinical notes rather than as structured coded data. Natural language processing (NLP) algorithms can automate the otherwise labor-intensive process of extraction of such information. Materials and Methods: Psychiatric encounter notes from Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS, n = 300) and Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM, n = 225) were annotated to create a gold-standard corpus. A rule-based system (RBS) involving lexicons and a large language model (LLM) using FLAN-T5-XL were developed to identify mentions of SS and SI and their subcategories (eg, social network, instrumental support, and loneliness). Results: For extracting SS/SI, the RBS obtained higher macroaveraged F1-scores than the LLM at both MSHS (0.89 versus 0.65) and WCM (0.85 versus 0.82). For extracting the subcategories, the RBS also outperformed the LLM at both MSHS (0.90 versus 0.62) and WCM (0.82 versus 0.81). Discussion and Conclusion: Unexpectedly, the RBS outperformed the LLMs across all metrics. An intensive review demonstrates that this finding is due to the divergent approach taken by the RBS and LLM. The RBS was designed and refined to follow the same specific rules as the gold-standard annotations. Conversely, the LLM was more inclusive with categorization and conformed to common English-language understanding. Both approaches offer advantages, although additional replication studies are warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jamia/ocae260

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 ability to identify linguistically complex constructs at scale has implications for mixed-methods researchers, in that measures that were previously unquantifiable may be quantified.

    “The ability to identify linguistically complex constructs at scale also has implications for mixed-methods researchers, in that measures that were previously unquantifiable may be quantified.39–42”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patra, B. G., Lepow, L. A., Kasi Reddy Jagadeesh Kumar, P., Vekaria, V., Sharma, M. M., Adekkanattu, P., Fennessy, B., Hynes, G., Landi, I., Sanchez-Ruiz, J. A., Ryu, E., Biernacka, J. M., Nadkarni, G. N., Talati, A., Weissman, M., Olfson, M., Mann, J. J., Zhang, Y., Charney, A. W., & Pathak, J.
Affiliations
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine , New York, NY 10065,
  • Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN 55905,
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Patra, Braja Gopal
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2024-10-18
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
218-226
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W4403524605
Cited by
32
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 4
FWCI
4.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 MH119177, R01 MH121907, R01 MH121921, R01 MH121922, R01 MH121923, R01 MH121924, S10OD026880, S10OD030463)
  • Scientific Computing and Data
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Health System
  • Clinical and Translational Science (UL1TR004419)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • Office of Research Infrastructure
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
social support, social isolation, clinical notes, natural language processing, large language models, rule-based extraction, social determinants of health, electronic health records, loneliness, instrumental support, social networks
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Mental Disorders, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Social Isolation, Social Support, Data Mining, 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