Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39210370›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2024

From admission to discharge: a systematic review of clinical natural language processing along the patient journey.

Katrin Klug, Katharina Beckh, Dario Antweiler, Nilesh Chakraborty, Giulia Baldini, Katharina Laue, René Hosch, Felix Nensa, Martin Schuler, Sven Giesselbach

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Understanding the Role of Patients and Carers in a Virtual Hospital Through Journey Mapping: Multi-Method Triangulation Analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Katrin KlugFraunhofer IAIS, Sankt Augustin, Germany. katrin.klug@iais.fraunhofer.de.
Katharina BeckhFraunhofer IAIS, Sankt Augustin, Germany.
Dario AntweilerFraunhofer IAIS, Sankt Augustin, Germany.
Nilesh ChakrabortyFraunhofer IAIS, Sankt Augustin, Germany.
Giulia BaldiniInstitute of Interventional and Diagnostic Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Katharina LaueWest German Cancer Centre, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
René HoschInstitute of Interventional and Diagnostic Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Felix NensaInstitute of Interventional and Diagnostic Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Martin SchulerWest German Cancer Centre, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Sven GiesselbachFraunhofer IAIS, Sankt Augustin, Germany.

Funding

Ministry for Economic Affairs, Industry, Climate Action and Energy of the State of North-Rhine-Westphalia, Germany 5-2011-0041/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical text, as part of an electronic health record, is an essential information source in healthcare. Although natural language processing (NLP) techniques for medical text are developing fast, successful transfer into clinical practice has been rare. Especially the hospital domain offers great potential while facing several challenges including many documents per patient, multiple departments and complex interrelated processes.

methodsIn this work, we survey relevant literature to identify and classify approaches which exploit NLP in the clinical context. Our contribution involves a systematic mapping of related research onto a prototypical patient journey in the hospital, along which medical documents are created, processed and consumed by hospital staff and patients themselves. Specifically, we reviewed which dataset types, dataset languages, model architectures and tasks are researched in current clinical NLP research. Additionally, we extract and analyze major obstacles during development and implementation. We discuss options to address them and argue for a focus on bias mitigation and model explainability.

resultsWhile a patient's hospital journey produces a significant amount of structured and unstructured documents, certain steps and documents receive more research attention than others. Diagnosis, Admission and Discharge are clinical patient steps that are researched often across the surveyed paper. In contrast, our findings reveal significant under-researched areas such as Treatment, Billing, After Care, and Smart Home. Leveraging NLP in these stages can greatly enhance clinical decision-making and patient outcomes. Additionally, clinical NLP models are mostly based on radiology reports, discharge letters and admission notes, even though we have shown that many other documents are produced throughout the patient journey. There is a significant opportunity in analyzing a wider range of medical documents produced throughout the patient journey to improve the applicability and impact of NLP in healthcare.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that there is a significant opportunity to leverage NLP approaches to advance clinical decision-making systems, as there remains a considerable understudied potential for the analysis of patient journey data.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsNatural Language ProcessingPatient DischargeHumansPatient AdmissionBiasClinical natural language processingExplainable MLOut-of-distribution generalizationPatient journey

Identifiers

PMID39210370
PMCPMC11360876

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.