Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 297

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automated Detection of Adverse Events Using Natural Language Processing of Discharge Summaries

Open access
Melton, Genevieve B., Hripcsak, George·2005·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether natural language processing (NLP) can effectively detect adverse events defined in the New York Patient Occurrence Reporting and Tracking System (NYPORTS) using discharge summaries. DESIGN: An adverse event detection system for discharge summaries using the NLP system MedLEE was constructed to identify 45 NYPORTS event types. The system was first applied to a random sample of 1,000 manually reviewed charts. The system then processed all inpatient cases with electronic discharge summaries for two years. All system-identified events were reviewed, and performance was compared with traditional reporting. MEASUREMENTS: System sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value, with manual review serving as the gold standard. RESULTS: The system correctly identified 16 of 65 events in 1,000 charts. Of 57,452 total electronic discharge summaries, the system identified 1,590 events in 1,461 cases, and manual review verified 704 events in 652 cases, resulting in an overall sensitivity of 0.28 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.42), specificity of 0.985 (CI: 0.984-0.986), and positive predictive value of 0.45 (CI: 0.42-0.47) for detecting cases with events and an average specificity of 0.9996 (CI: 0.9996-0.9997) per event type. Traditional event reporting detected 322 events during the period (sensitivity 0.09), of which the system identified 110 as well as 594 additional events missed by traditional methods. CONCLUSION: NLP is an effective technique for detecting a broad range of adverse events in text documents and outperformed traditional and previous automated adverse event detection methods.

Overview

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m1794

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 297

Metadata

Authors
Melton, G. B., & Hripcsak, G.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2005-07
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
448-457
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2166213950
Cited by
297
References
2
FWCI
15.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automated Detection of Adverse Events Using Natural Language Processing of Discharge Summaries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1197/jamia.m1794
The paper
Melton, G. B., & Hripcsak, G. (2005). Automated Detection of Adverse Events Using Natural Language Processing of Discharge Summaries. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m1794

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.