ArticleSummit on translational bioinformatics2010
Concept Discovery for Pathology Reports using an N-gram Model.
Article in Summit on translational bioinformatics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breaking Digital Health Barriers Through a Large Language Model-Based Tool for Automated Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Mapping: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- Application of Text Information Extraction System for Real-Time Cancer Case Identification in an Integrated Healthcare Organization.Journal of pathology informatics · 2017Article
- Automated extraction of precise protein expression patterns in lymphoma by text mining abstracts of immunohistochemical studies.Journal of pathology informatics · 2013Article
- Applying MetaMap to Medline for identifying novel associations in a large clinical dataset: a feasibility analysis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A large amount of valuable information is available in plain text clinical reports. New techniques and technologies are applied to extract information from these reports. One of the leading systems in the cancer community is the Cancer Text Information Extraction System (caTIES), which was developed with caBIG-compliant data structures. caTIES embedded two key components for extracting data: MMTx and GATE. In this paper, an n-gram based framework is proven to be capable of discovering concepts from text reports. MetaMap is used to map medical terms to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Metathesaurus and the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) Metathesaurus for verifying legitimate medical data. The final concepts from our framework and caTIES are weighted based on our scoring model. The scores show that, on average, our framework scores higher than caTIES on 848 (36.9%) of reports. Furthermore, 1388 (60.5%) of reports have similar performances on both systems.
Identifiers
21347147PMC3041542What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.