ReviewCurrent addiction reports2026
Natural Language Processing for Substance Use Disorder Information Extraction: A Systematic Literature Review.
Review in Current addiction reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose of Review: To examine the use of natural language processing (NLP) for substance use disorder (SUD) information extraction. Recent Findings: 623 studies were reviewed, of which 35 met inclusion criteria. 1 paper (2.9%) was alcohol-related, 12 (34.3%) were opioid-related, 6 (17.1%) were tobacco-related, and 16 (45.7%) included multiple SUDs. Of the three types of NLP categorized for this analysis, 65.7% followed a Rule-Based approach, 37.1% followed a Machine-Learning approach, and 11.4% followed a Deep-Learning approach. NLP methods were categorized into three groups, with 43% as "Most common use" (e.g., concept extraction), 20-35% as "Regular use" (e.g., regular expressions), and < 10% as "Rare use" (e.g., sentiment analysis). Various software applications were used in each included paper, with Python leading (10 papers), followed by cTAKES (9 papers), NegEx (6 papers), R (4 papers) and others. Multiple evaluation metrics were used in each included paper; Multiple SUDs (6 papers) utilized a comparison of F1 scores and ROC AUC, followed by Tobacco (4 papers), Opioids (3 papers), and Alcohol (1 paper), each with acceptable-to-outstanding ROC AUC scores ( > = 0.7) and good-to-excellent F1 scores ( > = 0.7). Summary: Most papers included in this systematic review encompassed multiple SUDs following Rule-Based approaches, "Most common use" NLP methods (e.g. concept extraction), and familiar software applications (e.g. Python). Evaluation metrics for SUD papers utilizing NLP included common performance metrics, with ROC AUC and F1 scores achieving acceptable-to-outstanding discrimination between classes and good-to-excellent balance between precision and recall, respectively. The future direction of NLP for SUD information extraction could make use of Machine- or Deep-Learning approaches, advanced methods including Regular expressions or Sentiment analysis, and/or advanced software packages designed specifically for NLP endeavors, to better inform public health research and clinical decision making.
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.