Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19025689›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008

Mining clinical relationships from patient narratives.

Angus Roberts, Robert Gaizauskas, Mark Hepple, Yikun Guo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. De-identification of clinical narratives through writing complexity measures.International journal of medical informatics · 2014
    Article
  3. Learning to identify treatment relations in clinical text.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2014
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Automated identification of medical concepts and assertions in medical text.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2010
    Article
  9. Semantic relations for problem-oriented medical records.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2010
    Article
  10. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angus RobertsDepartment of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 211 Portobello, Sheffield S14DP, UK. a.roberts@dcs.shef.ac.uk
Robert Gaizauskas
Mark Hepple
Yikun Guo
University of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0300607Medical Research Council GO300607
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Clinical E-Science Framework (CLEF) project has built a system to extract clinically significant information from the textual component of medical records in order to support clinical research, evidence-based healthcare and genotype-meets-phenotype informatics. One part of this system is the identification of relationships between clinically important entities in the text. Typical approaches to relationship extraction in this domain have used full parses, domain-specific grammars, and large knowledge bases encoding domain knowledge. In other areas of biomedical NLP, statistical machine learning (ML) approaches are now routinely applied to relationship extraction. We report on the novel application of these statistical techniques to the extraction of clinical relationships.

resultsWe have designed and implemented an ML-based system for relation extraction, using support vector machines, and trained and tested it on a corpus of oncology narratives hand-annotated with clinically important relationships. Over a class of seven relation types, the system achieves an average F1 score of 72%, only slightly behind an indicative measure of human inter annotator agreement on the same task. We investigate the effectiveness of different features for this task, how extraction performance varies between inter- and intra-sentential relationships, and examine the amount of training data needed to learn various relationships.

conclusionWe have shown that it is possible to extract important clinical relationships from text, using supervised statistical ML techniques, at levels of accuracy approaching those of human annotators. Given the importance of relation extraction as an enabling technology for text mining and given also the ready adaptability of systems based on our supervised learning approach to other clinical relationship extraction tasks, this result has significance for clinical text mining more generally, though further work to confirm our encouraging results should be carried out on a larger sample of narratives and relationship types.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingAlgorithmsHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical Records Systems, Computerized

Identifiers

PMID19025689
PMCPMC2586752
OpenAlexW1973797881

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.