Cited by 22Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesMachine Learning in HealthcareMedical Coding and Health Information

Hospital-wide natural language processing summarising the health data of 1 million patients

Open access
Bean, Daniel M., Kraljevic, Zeljko, Shek, Anthony, Teo, James, Dobson, Richard J. B.·2023·PLOS Digital Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Electronic health records (EHRs) represent a major repository of real world clinical trajectories, interventions and outcomes. While modern enterprise EHR’s try to capture data in structured standardised formats, a significant bulk of the available information captured in the EHR is still recorded only in unstructured text format and can only be transformed into structured codes by manual processes. Recently, Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms have reached a level of performance suitable for large scale and accurate information extraction from clinical text. Here we describe the application of open-source named-entity-recognition and linkage (NER+L) methods (CogStack, MedCAT) to the entire text content of a large UK hospital trust (King’s College Hospital, London). The resulting dataset contains 157M SNOMED concepts generated from 9.5M documents for 1.07M patients over a period of 9 years. We present a summary of prevalence and disease onset as well as a patient embedding that captures major comorbidity patterns at scale. NLP has the potential to transform the health data lifecycle, through large-scale automation of a traditionally manual task.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000218

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • The disease profile of Foresight would be weighted to conditions and scenarios in secondary and tertiary care, i.e., weighted towards more comorbidity because patients with lower complexity or early-stage conditions who are completely dealt with in primary care would be under-represented in the dataset.

    “the disease profile would be weighted to conditions and scenarios in secondary and tertiary care-ie, it would be weighted towards more comorbidity because patients with lower complexity or earlystage conditions who are completely dealt with in primary care would be underrepresented in our dataset.23”

    From Foresight-a generative pretrained transformer for modelling of patient timelines using electronic health records: a retrospective modelling study (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bean, D. M., Kraljevic, Z., Shek, A., Teo, J., & Dobson, R. J. B.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Bean, Daniel M.
Venue
PLOS Digital Health
Published
2023-05-09
Volume
2
Issue
5
Pages
e0000218
ISSN
2767-3170 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4376133440
Cited by
22
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLOS Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/S00310X/1)
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
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
natural language processing, electronic health records, named entity recognition, entity linking, clinical text, comorbidity patterns, disease onset, patient embeddings, clinical information extraction

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