Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 3, 2025

Augmenting Large Language Models via Vector Embeddings to Improve Domain-Specific Responsiveness
Published on: December 6, 2024
Mixed-methods evaluation of three natural language processing modeling approaches for measuring documented
Alison M Uyeda1, J Randall Curtis2, Ruth A Engelberg3
1Department of Medicine (A.M.U., J.R.C., R.A.E., J.T., J.H., S.R.P., E.K.K., R.Y.L.), University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence at UW Medicine (A.M.U., J.R.C., R.A.E., L.C.B., Y.G., J.S., W.B.L., T.C., J.T., J.H., S.R.P., E.K.K., R.Y.L.), University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Context:
Documented goals-of-care discussions are an important quality metric for patients with serious illness. Natural language processing (NLP) is a promising approach for identifying goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record (EHR).
Objectives:
To compare three NLP modeling approaches for identifying EHR documentation of goals-of-care discussions and generate hypotheses about differences in performance.
Methods:
We conducted a mixed-methods study to evaluate performance and misclassification for three NLP featurization approaches modeled with regularized logistic regression: bag-of-words (BOW), rule-based, and a hybrid approach. From a prospective cohort of 150 patients hospitalized with serious illness over 2018 to 2020, we collected 4391 inpatient EHR notes; 99 (2.3%) contained documented goals-of-care discussions. We used leave-one-out cross-validation to estimate performance by comparing pooled NLP predictions to human abstractors with receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) and precision-recall (PR) analyses. We qualitatively examined a purposive sample of 70 NLP-misclassified notes using content analysis to identify linguistic features that allowed us to generate hypotheses underpinning misclassification.
Results:
All three modeling approaches discriminated between notes with and without goals-of-care discussions (AUCROC: BOW, 0.907; rule-based, 0.948; hybrid, 0.965). Precision and recall were only moderate (precision at 70% recall: BOW, 16.2%; rule-based, 50.4%; hybrid, 49.3%; AUCPR: BOW, 0.505; rule-based, 0.579; hybrid, 0.599). Qualitative analysis revealed patterns underlying performance differences between BOW and rule-based approaches.
Conclusion:
NLP holds promise for identifying EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions. However, the rarity of goals-of-care content in EHR data limits performance. Our findings highlight opportunities to optimize NLP modeling approaches, and support further exploration of different NLP approaches to identify goals-of-care discussions.
More Related Videos
05:47Evidence-based Knowledge Synthesis and Hypothesis Validation: Navigating Biomedical Knowledge Bases via Explainable AI and Agentic Systems
Published on: June 13, 2025
13:44Project-Based Learning Guidelines for Health Sciences Students: An Analysis with Data Mining and Qualitative Techniques
Published on: December 9, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...
Methods of Documentation VII: EMR
Methods of Documentation V: CBE
In CBE, healthcare professionals establish predefined standards of practice that define what constitutes...
Role of Communication in the Nursing Process III: Evaluation and Documentation
Documentation in Long-Term and Home Healthcare Setting
Long-Term Care Facilities
Methods of Documentation IV: Focus Charting
It typically involves three columns for recording information: