Abstract
Clinical notes are the best record of a provider’s perceptions of their patients, but their use in studying racial bias in clinical documentation has typically been limited to manual evaluation of small datasets. We investigated the use of computational methods to scale these insights to large, heterogeneous clinical text data. We found significant differences in negative emotional tone and language implying social dominance in clinical notes between Black and White patients, but identified multiple contributing factors in addition to potential provider bias, including mis-categorization of some healthcare vocabulary as emotion-related. We further found that notes for Black patients were significantly less likely to mention opioids than for White patients, potentially reflecting both inequitable access to medication and provider bias. Our analysis showed that computational tools have significant potential for studying racial bias in large clinical corpora, and identified key challenges to providing a nuanced analysis of bias in clinical documentation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by the National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health under award number T15LM007059.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study involves only openly available human data. The source data (MIMIC-III) are available through PhysioNet: https://physionet.org/content/mimiciii/1.4/
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
