Cited by 88Asthma and respiratory diseasesMedical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records Systems

Application of a Natural Language Processing Algorithm to Asthma Ascertainment. An Automated Chart Review

Open access
Wi, Chung-Il, Sohn, Sunghwan, Rolfes, Mary C., Seabright, Alicia, Ryu, Euijung, Voge, Gretchen, Bachman, Kay A., Park, Miguel A. +4 more·2017·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: Difficulty of asthma ascertainment and its associated methodologic heterogeneity have created significant barriers to asthma care and research. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the validity of an existing natural language processing (NLP) algorithm for asthma criteria to enable an automated chart review using electronic medical records (EMRs). METHODS: The study was designed as a retrospective birth cohort study using a random sample of 500 subjects from the 1997-2007 Mayo Birth Cohort who were born at Mayo Clinic and enrolled in primary pediatric care at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Performance of NLP-based asthma ascertainment using predetermined asthma criteria was assessed by determining both criterion validity (chart review of EMRs by abstractor as a gold standard) and construct validity (association with known risk factors for asthma, such as allergic rhinitis). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After excluding three subjects whose respiratory symptoms could be attributed to other conditions (e.g., tracheomalacia), among the remaining eligible 497 subjects, 51% were male, 77% white persons, and the median age at last follow-up date was 11.5 years. The asthma prevalence was 31% in the study cohort. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for NLP algorithm in predicting asthma status were 97%, 95%, 90%, and 98%, respectively. The risk factors for asthma (e.g., allergic rhinitis) that were identified either by NLP or the abstractor were the same. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma ascertainment through NLP should be considered in the era of EMRs because it can enable large-scale clinical studies in a more time-efficient manner and improve the recognition and care of childhood asthma in practice.

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 · 10.1164/rccm.201610-2006oc

Cites

54 of 54 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?

  • 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 [33]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wi, C.-I., Sohn, S., Rolfes, M. C., Seabright, A., Ryu, E., Voge, G., Bachman, K. A., Park, M. A., Kita, H., Croghan, I. T., Liu, H., & Juhn, Y. J.
Affiliations
  • Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine
  • Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, and
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Asthma Epidemiology Research Unit
  • Children's Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Juhn, Young J.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2017-08
Volume
196
Issue
4
Pages
430-437
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2604265436
Cited by
88
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6
FWCI
5.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000135, TR000135)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG034676, R01-AG34676)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL126667)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R21AI116839)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (TR000135)
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, childhood asthma, asthma prevalence, allergic rhinitis, asthma risk factors, algorithm validation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Asthma, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Male, Minnesota, Natural Language Processing, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Prevalence, 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