SynthesisAge and ageing2024
The use of natural language processing for the identification of ageing syndromes including sarcopenia, frailty and falls in electronic healthcare records: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Age and ageing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Natural language processing for geriatric syndromes: a systematic review of methods, applications, and challenges.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Extracting geriatric syndromes from electronic health records: a scoping review.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- Promoting healthy aging in a digital world: leveraging technology for enhanced elderly care and wellbeing.Frontiers in aging · 2026Review
- Identifying health conditions in older adults in textual health records using deep learning-based natural language processing.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecording and coding of ageing syndromes in hospital records is known to be suboptimal. Natural Language Processing algorithms may be useful to identify diagnoses in electronic healthcare records to improve the recording and coding of these ageing syndromes, but the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of such algorithms are unclear.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review according to a predefined protocol and in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches were run from the inception of each database to the end of September 2023 in PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ACM digital library, IEEE Xplore and Scopus. Eligible studies were identified via independent review of search results by two coauthors and data extracted from each study to identify the computational method, source of text, testing strategy and performance metrics. Data were synthesised narratively by ageing syndrome and computational method in line with the Studies Without Meta-analysis guidelines.
resultsFrom 1030 titles screened, 22 studies were eligible for inclusion. One study focussed on identifying sarcopenia, one frailty, twelve falls, five delirium, five dementia and four incontinence. Sensitivity (57.1%-100%) of algorithms compared with a reference standard was reported in 20 studies, and specificity (84.0%-100%) was reported in only 12 studies. Study design quality was variable with results relevant to diagnostic accuracy not always reported, and few studies undertaking external validation of algorithms.
conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that Natural Language Processing algorithms can identify ageing syndromes in electronic health records. However, algorithms require testing in rigorously designed diagnostic accuracy studies with appropriate metrics reported.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.