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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Incidence of Adverse Drug Events and Potential Adverse Drug Events: Implications for Prevention
Bates, D. W. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530010043033 · Cited by 2,127
Automatic Detection of Acute Bacterial Pneumonia from Chest X-ray Reports
Fiszman, M., Chapman, W. W., Aronsky, D., Evans, R. S., & Haug, P. J. (2000) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2000.0070593 · Cited by 250
Cited by
Artificial intelligence in surgery: promises and perils
Hashimoto, D. A., Rosman, G., Rus, D., & Meireles, O. R. (2018) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000002693 · Cited by 1,468
Savova, G. K., Kipper-Schuler, K. C., Hurdle, J. F., & Meystre, S. M. (2008) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1638592 · Cited by 895
Data from clinical notes: a perspective on the tension between structure and flexible documentation
Rosenbloom, S. T., Denny, J. C., Xu, H., Lorenzi, N., Stead, W. W., & Johnson, K. B. (2011) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.007237 · Cited by 404
2018 n2c2 shared task on adverse drug events and medication extraction in electronic health records
Henry, S., Buchan, K., Filannino, M., Stubbs, A., & Uzuner, O. (2020) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz166 · Cited by 303
Mining Electronic Health Records (EHRs): A Survey
Yadav, P., Steinbach, M., Kumar, V., & Simon, G. (2018) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3127881 · Cited by 299
Metadata
- Authors
- Melton, G. B., & Hripcsak, G.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.