ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025
Natural Language Processing for Enhanced Clinical Decision Support in Allergy Verification for Medication Prescriptions.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improving machine-learning development in allergology: bridging the gap between open-access and cohort-based databases.Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and validate a named entity recognition (NER) model based on BERT-based model trained on Spanish-language corpor, for extracting allergy-related information from unstructured electronic health records. Patients and Methods: The model was fine-tuned using 16,176 manually annotated allergy-related entities from anonimized patient records (hospitalized patients between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024). The data set was divided into training (80%) and testing (20%) subsets, and model performance was evaluated using accuracy, recall, and F1 score. The validated model was applied to another data set with 80,917 medication prescriptions from 5859 hospitalized patients with at least one prescribed medication (during August and September 2024) to detect potential prescription errors. Sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen κ were calculated using manual expert review as the gold standard. Results: The model achieved an accuracy of 87.28% and an F1 score of 0.80. It effectively identified medication names (F1=0.91) and adverse reactions (F1=0.85) but struggled with recommendation-related entities (F1=0.29). The model detected prescription errors in 0.96% of cases, with a sensitivity of 75.73% and specificity of 99.98%. The weighted κ score (0.7797) indicated substantial agreement with expert annotations. Conclusion: The BERT-based model trained on Spanish-language corpora-based NER model demonstrated strong performance in identifying nonallergic cases (specificity, 99.98%; negative predictive value, 99.97%) and showed promise for clinical decision support. Despite moderate sensitivity (75.73%), these results highlight the feasibility of using Spanish-language NER models to enhance medication safety.
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.