Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19761566›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2009

Developing a manually annotated clinical document corpus to identify phenotypic information for inflammatory bowel disease.

Brett R South, Shuying Shen, Makoto Jones, Jennifer Garvin, Matthew H Samore, Wendy W Chapman, Adi V Gundlapalli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Clinical concept extraction: A methodology review.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Open Source Clinical NLP - More than Any Single System.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2014
    Article
  16. Building gold standard corpora for medical natural language processing tasks.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2012
    Article
  17. A multi-site content analysis of social history information in clinical notes.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2011
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Brett R SouthVA Salt Lake City Health Care System, IDEAS Center, Salt Lake City, Utah 84148, USA. brett.south@hsc.utah.edu
Shuying Shen
Makoto Jones
Jennifer Garvin
Matthew H Samore
Wendy W Chapman
Adi V Gundlapalli

Funding

Research Center of Excellence in Public InformaticsP01CD000284 · CD · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI SAMORE, MATTHEW H · 2006 to 2006
$1.5M
ODCDC CDC HHS 1 PO1 CD000284-01ODCDC CDC HHS P01 CD000284
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNatural Language Processing (NLP) systems can be used for specific Information Extraction (IE) tasks such as extracting phenotypic data from the electronic medical record (EMR). These data are useful for translational research and are often found only in free text clinical notes. A key required step for IE is the manual annotation of clinical corpora and the creation of a reference standard for (1) training and validation tasks and (2) to focus and clarify NLP system requirements. These tasks are time consuming, expensive, and require considerable effort on the part of human reviewers.

methodsUsing a set of clinical documents from the VA EMR for a particular use case of interest we identify specific challenges and present several opportunities for annotation tasks. We demonstrate specific methods using an open source annotation tool, a customized annotation schema, and a corpus of clinical documents for patients known to have a diagnosis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). We report clinician annotator agreement at the document, concept, and concept attribute level. We estimate concept yield in terms of annotated concepts within specific note sections and document types.

resultsAnnotator agreement at the document level for documents that contained concepts of interest for IBD using estimated Kappa statistic (95% CI) was very high at 0.87 (0.82, 0.93). At the concept level, F-measure ranged from 0.61 to 0.83. However, agreement varied greatly at the specific concept attribute level. For this particular use case (IBD), clinical documents producing the highest concept yield per document included GI clinic notes and primary care notes. Within the various types of notes, the highest concept yield was in sections representing patient assessment and history of presenting illness. Ancillary service documents and family history and plan note sections produced the lowest concept yield.

conclusionChallenges include defining and building appropriate annotation schemas, adequately training clinician annotators, and determining the appropriate level of information to be annotated. Opportunities include narrowing the focus of information extraction to use case specific note types and sections, especially in cases where NLP systems will be used to extract information from large repositories of electronic clinical note documents.

Indexed as

PhenotypeComputational BiologyHumansInflammatory Bowel DiseasesVocabulary, Controlled

Identifiers

PMID19761566
PMCPMC2745683

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.