Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16135244›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2005

Automation of a problem list using natural language processing.

Stephane Meystre, Peter J Haug

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Discovering associations between problem list and practice setting.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. A bibliometric analysis of natural language processing in medical research.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018
    Article
  19. Generalized Extraction and Classification of Span-Level Clinical Phrases.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stephane MeystreDepartment of Medical Informatics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. s.meystre@utah.edu
Peter J Haug

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe medical problem list is an important part of the electronic medical record in development in our institution. To serve the functions it is designed for, the problem list has to be as accurate and timely as possible. However, the current problem list is usually incomplete and inaccurate, and is often totally unused. To alleviate this issue, we are building an environment where the problem list can be easily and effectively maintained.

methodsFor this project, 80 medical problems were selected for their frequency of use in our future clinical field of evaluation (cardiovascular). We have developed an Automated Problem List system composed of two main components: a background and a foreground application. The background application uses Natural Language Processing (NLP) to harvest potential problem list entries from the list of 80 targeted problems detected in the multiple free-text electronic documents available in our electronic medical record. These proposed medical problems drive the foreground application designed for management of the problem list. Within this application, the extracted problems are proposed to the physicians for addition to the official problem list.

resultsThe set of 80 targeted medical problems selected for this project covered about 5% of all possible diagnoses coded in ICD-9-CM in our study population (cardiovascular adult inpatients), but about 64% of all instances of these coded diagnoses. The system contains algorithms to detect first document sections, then sentences within these sections, and finally potential problems within the sentences. The initial evaluation of the section and sentence detection algorithms demonstrated a sensitivity and positive predictive value of 100% when detecting sections, and a sensitivity of 89% and a positive predictive value of 94% when detecting sentences.

conclusionThe global aim of our project is to automate the process of creating and maintaining a problem list for hospitalized patients and thereby help to guarantee the timeliness, accuracy and completeness of this information.

Indexed as

Hospital Information SystemsHospitals, UniversityMedical Records, Problem-OrientedMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedNatural Language ProcessingAdultAlgorithmsBayes TheoremCardiovascular DiseasesElectronic Data ProcessingHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesPilot ProjectsUser-Computer InterfaceUtah

Identifiers

PMID16135244
PMCPMC1208893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.