Examining Linguistic Differences in Electronic Health Records for Diverse Patients With Diabetes: Natural Language Processing Analysis.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL INFORMATICS JMIR Medical Informatics Pub Date : 2024-05-23 DOI:10.2196/50428
Isabel Bilotta, Scott Tonidandel, Winston R Liaw, Eden King, Diana N Carvajal, Ayana Taylor, Julie Thamby, Yang Xiang, Cui Tao, Michael Hansen
{"title":"Examining Linguistic Differences in Electronic Health Records for Diverse Patients With Diabetes: Natural Language Processing Analysis.","authors":"Isabel Bilotta, Scott Tonidandel, Winston R Liaw, Eden King, Diana N Carvajal, Ayana Taylor, Julie Thamby, Yang Xiang, Cui Tao, Michael Hansen","doi":"10.2196/50428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individuals from minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds experience pernicious and pervasive health disparities that have emerged, in part, from clinician bias.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We used a natural language processing approach to examine whether linguistic markers in electronic health record (EHR) notes differ based on the race and ethnicity of the patient. To validate this methodological approach, we also assessed the extent to which clinicians perceive linguistic markers to be indicative of bias.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, we extracted EHR notes for patients who were aged 18 years or older; had more than 5 years of diabetes diagnosis codes; and received care between 2006 and 2014 from family physicians, general internists, or endocrinologists practicing in an urban, academic network of clinics. The race and ethnicity of patients were defined as White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, or Hispanic or Latino. We hypothesized that Sentiment Analysis and Social Cognition Engine (SEANCE) components (ie, negative adjectives, positive adjectives, joy words, fear and disgust words, politics words, respect words, trust verbs, and well-being words) and mean word count would be indicators of bias if racial differences emerged. We performed linear mixed effects analyses to examine the relationship between the outcomes of interest (the SEANCE components and word count) and patient race and ethnicity, controlling for patient age. To validate this approach, we asked clinicians to indicate the extent to which they thought variation in the use of SEANCE language domains for different racial and ethnic groups was reflective of bias in EHR notes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We examined EHR notes (n=12,905) of Black non-Hispanic, White non-Hispanic, and Hispanic or Latino patients (n=1562), who were seen by 281 physicians. A total of 27 clinicians participated in the validation study. In terms of bias, participants rated negative adjectives as 8.63 (SD 2.06), fear and disgust words as 8.11 (SD 2.15), and positive adjectives as 7.93 (SD 2.46) on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being extremely indicative of bias. Notes for Black non-Hispanic patients contained significantly more negative adjectives (coefficient 0.07, SE 0.02) and significantly more fear and disgust words (coefficient 0.007, SE 0.002) than those for White non-Hispanic patients. The notes for Hispanic or Latino patients included significantly fewer positive adjectives (coefficient -0.02, SE 0.007), trust verbs (coefficient -0.009, SE 0.004), and joy words (coefficient -0.03, SE 0.01) than those for White non-Hispanic patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This approach may enable physicians and researchers to identify and mitigate bias in medical interactions, with the goal of reducing health disparities stemming from bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":56334,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11137426/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/50428","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Individuals from minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds experience pernicious and pervasive health disparities that have emerged, in part, from clinician bias.

Objective: We used a natural language processing approach to examine whether linguistic markers in electronic health record (EHR) notes differ based on the race and ethnicity of the patient. To validate this methodological approach, we also assessed the extent to which clinicians perceive linguistic markers to be indicative of bias.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we extracted EHR notes for patients who were aged 18 years or older; had more than 5 years of diabetes diagnosis codes; and received care between 2006 and 2014 from family physicians, general internists, or endocrinologists practicing in an urban, academic network of clinics. The race and ethnicity of patients were defined as White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, or Hispanic or Latino. We hypothesized that Sentiment Analysis and Social Cognition Engine (SEANCE) components (ie, negative adjectives, positive adjectives, joy words, fear and disgust words, politics words, respect words, trust verbs, and well-being words) and mean word count would be indicators of bias if racial differences emerged. We performed linear mixed effects analyses to examine the relationship between the outcomes of interest (the SEANCE components and word count) and patient race and ethnicity, controlling for patient age. To validate this approach, we asked clinicians to indicate the extent to which they thought variation in the use of SEANCE language domains for different racial and ethnic groups was reflective of bias in EHR notes.

Results: We examined EHR notes (n=12,905) of Black non-Hispanic, White non-Hispanic, and Hispanic or Latino patients (n=1562), who were seen by 281 physicians. A total of 27 clinicians participated in the validation study. In terms of bias, participants rated negative adjectives as 8.63 (SD 2.06), fear and disgust words as 8.11 (SD 2.15), and positive adjectives as 7.93 (SD 2.46) on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being extremely indicative of bias. Notes for Black non-Hispanic patients contained significantly more negative adjectives (coefficient 0.07, SE 0.02) and significantly more fear and disgust words (coefficient 0.007, SE 0.002) than those for White non-Hispanic patients. The notes for Hispanic or Latino patients included significantly fewer positive adjectives (coefficient -0.02, SE 0.007), trust verbs (coefficient -0.009, SE 0.004), and joy words (coefficient -0.03, SE 0.01) than those for White non-Hispanic patients.

Conclusions: This approach may enable physicians and researchers to identify and mitigate bias in medical interactions, with the goal of reducing health disparities stemming from bias.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究不同糖尿病患者电子健康记录中的语言差异:自然语言处理分析。
背景:来自少数种族和民族背景的人在健康方面存在着严重而普遍的差异,这些差异部分源于临床医生的偏见:我们使用自然语言处理方法来研究电子健康记录(EHR)笔记中的语言标记是否因患者的种族和民族而有所不同。为了验证这种方法,我们还评估了临床医生认为语言标记在多大程度上表明了偏见:在这项横断面研究中,我们提取了年龄在 18 岁或 18 岁以上、有 5 年以上糖尿病诊断代码、在 2006 年至 2014 年期间接受过家庭医生、普通内科医生或内分泌科医生治疗的患者的电子病历记录。患者的种族和民族被定义为非西班牙裔白人、非西班牙裔黑人、西班牙裔或拉丁裔。我们假设,如果出现种族差异,情感分析和社会认知引擎(SEANCE)的成分(即负面形容词、正面形容词、欢乐词、恐惧和厌恶词、政治词、尊重词、信任动词和幸福词)和平均字数将成为偏见的指标。我们进行了线性混合效应分析,以检验相关结果(SEANCE 成分和字数)与患者种族和民族之间的关系,同时控制患者年龄。为了验证这种方法,我们请临床医生说明他们认为不同种族和族裔群体在使用 SEANCE 语言域方面的差异在多大程度上反映了电子病历笔记中的偏差:我们检查了由 281 名医生诊治的非西班牙裔黑人、非西班牙裔白人、西班牙裔或拉丁裔患者(n=1562)的电子病历记录(n=12905)。共有 27 名临床医生参与了验证研究。在偏差方面,参与者对负面形容词的评分为 8.63(标度 2.06),对恐惧和厌恶词的评分为 8.11(标度 2.15),对正面形容词的评分为 7.93(标度 2.46),评分范围从 1 到 10,10 为极度偏差。黑人非西班牙裔患者的笔记中包含的负面形容词(系数 0.07,SE 0.02)以及恐惧和厌恶词(系数 0.007,SE 0.002)明显多于白人非西班牙裔患者的笔记。西班牙裔或拉丁裔患者的笔记中包含的积极形容词(系数-0.02,SE 0.007)、信任动词(系数-0.009,SE 0.004)和欢乐词(系数-0.03,SE 0.01)明显少于非西班牙裔白人患者:这种方法可以帮助医生和研究人员识别并减轻医疗互动中的偏差,从而减少因偏差造成的健康差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Informatics
JMIR Medical Informatics Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
173
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR Medical Informatics (JMI, ISSN 2291-9694) is a top-rated, tier A journal which focuses on clinical informatics, big data in health and health care, decision support for health professionals, electronic health records, ehealth infrastructures and implementation. It has a focus on applied, translational research, with a broad readership including clinicians, CIOs, engineers, industry and health informatics professionals. Published by JMIR Publications, publisher of the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), the leading eHealth/mHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175), JMIR Med Inform has a slightly different scope (emphasizing more on applications for clinicians and health professionals rather than consumers/citizens, which is the focus of JMIR), publishes even faster, and also allows papers which are more technical or more formative than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
期刊最新文献
Comparative Study to Evaluate the Accuracy of Differential Diagnosis Lists Generated by Gemini Advanced, Gemini, and Bard for a Case Report Series Analysis: Cross-Sectional Study. Disambiguating Clinical Abbreviations by One-to-All Classification: Algorithm Development and Validation Study. Addressing Information Biases Within Electronic Health Record Data to Improve the Examination of Epidemiologic Associations With Diabetes Prevalence Among Young Adults: Cross-Sectional Study. Toward Better Semantic Interoperability of Data Element Repositories in Medicine: Analysis Study. Practical Aspects of Using Large Language Models to Screen Abstracts for Cardiovascular Drug Development: Cross-Sectional Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1