Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21658290›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011

A context-blocks model for identifying clinical relationships in patient records.

Rezarta Islamaj Doğan, Aurélie Névéol, Zhiyong Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Joint segmentation and named entity recognition using dual decomposition in Chinese discharge summaries.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2014
    Article
  8. tmBioC: improving interoperability of text-mining tools with BioC.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2014
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. SimConcept: A Hybrid Approach for Simplifying Composite Named Entities in Biomedicine.ACM-BCB ... ... : the ... ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine. ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine
    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

3 authors.

Rezarta Islamaj DoğanNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Rezarta.Islamaj@nih.gov
Aurélie Névéol
Zhiyong Lu

Funding

Named Entity Recognition and Relationship Extraction in BiomedicineZIALM000002 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI LU, ZHIYONG · 2011 to 2012
$1.5M
Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient records contain valuable information regarding explanation of diagnosis, progression of disease, prescription and/or effectiveness of treatment, and more. Automatic recognition of clinically important concepts and the identification of relationships between those concepts in patient records are preliminary steps for many important applications in medical informatics, ranging from quality of care to hypothesis generation.

methodsIn this work we describe an approach that facilitates the automatic recognition of eight relationships defined between medical problems, treatments and tests. Unlike the traditional bag-of-words representation, in this work, we represent a relationship with a scheme of five distinct context-blocks determined by the position of concepts in the text. As a preliminary step to relationship recognition, and in order to provide an end-to-end system, we also addressed the automatic extraction of medical problems, treatments and tests. Our approach combined the outcome of a statistical model for concept recognition and simple natural language processing features in a conditional random fields model. A set of 826 patient records from the 4th i2b2 challenge was used for training and evaluating the system.

resultsResults show that our concept recognition system achieved an F-measure of 0.870 for exact span concept detection. Moreover the context-block representation of relationships was more successful (F-Measure = 0.775) at identifying relationships than bag-of-words (F-Measure = 0.402). Most importantly, the performance of the end-to-end system of relationship extraction using automatically extracted concepts (F-Measure = 0.704) was comparable to that obtained using manually annotated concepts (F-Measure = 0.711), and their difference was not statistically significant.

conclusionsWe extracted important clinical relationships from text in an automated manner, starting with concept recognition, and ending with relationship identification. The advantage of the context-blocks representation scheme was the correct management of word position information, which may be critical in identifying certain relationships. Our results may serve as benchmark for comparison to other systems developed on i2b2 challenge data. Finally, our system may serve as a preliminary step for other discovery tasks in medical informatics.

Indexed as

Medical Records, Problem-OrientedMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedModels, StatisticalNatural Language ProcessingHumans

Identifiers

PMID21658290
PMCPMC3111589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.