Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22085698›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2012

Enhancing clinical concept extraction with distributional semantics.

Siddhartha Jonnalagadda, Trevor Cohen, Stephen Wu, Graciela Gonzalez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Segment convolutional neural networks (Seg-CNNs) for classifying relations in clinical notes.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Siddhartha JonnalagaddaDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA. siddhartha@mayo.edu
Trevor Cohen
Stephen Wu
Graciela Gonzalez

Funding

U OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON CENTER FOR CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1RR024148 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MCPHERSON, DAVID D · 2006 to 2010
$27.9M
Concept-Level Methods for Comparative Effectiveness ResearchRC1RR028254 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI BERNSTAM, ELMER V. · 2009 to 2010
$952k
CCR NIH HHS 1RC1RR028254NCRR NIH HHS 3UL1RR024148NCRR NIH HHS RC1 RR028254NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024148NLM NIH HHS HHSN276201000031C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracting concepts (such as drugs, symptoms, and diagnoses) from clinical narratives constitutes a basic enabling technology to unlock the knowledge within and support more advanced reasoning applications such as diagnosis explanation, disease progression modeling, and intelligent analysis of the effectiveness of treatment. The recent release of annotated training sets of de-identified clinical narratives has contributed to the development and refinement of concept extraction methods. However, as the annotation process is labor-intensive, training data are necessarily limited in the concepts and concept patterns covered, which impacts the performance of supervised machine learning applications trained with these data. This paper proposes an approach to minimize this limitation by combining supervised machine learning with empirical learning of semantic relatedness from the distribution of the relevant words in additional unannotated text. The approach uses a sequential discriminative classifier (Conditional Random Fields) to extract the mentions of medical problems, treatments and tests from clinical narratives. It takes advantage of all Medline abstracts indexed as being of the publication type "clinical trials" to estimate the relatedness between words in the i2b2/VA training and testing corpora. In addition to the traditional features such as dictionary matching, pattern matching and part-of-speech tags, we also used as a feature words that appear in similar contexts to the word in question (that is, words that have a similar vector representation measured with the commonly used cosine metric, where vector representations are derived using methods of distributional semantics). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort exploring the use of distributional semantics, the semantics derived empirically from unannotated text often using vector space models, for a sequence classification task such as concept extraction. Therefore, we first experimented with different sliding window models and found the model with parameters that led to best performance in a preliminary sequence labeling task. The evaluation of this approach, performed against the i2b2/VA concept extraction corpus, showed that incorporating features based on the distribution of words across a large unannotated corpus significantly aids concept extraction. Compared to a supervised-only approach as a baseline, the micro-averaged F-score for exact match increased from 80.3% to 82.3% and the micro-averaged F-score based on inexact match increased from 89.7% to 91.3%. These improvements are highly significant according to the bootstrap resampling method and also considering the performance of other systems. Thus, distributional semantic features significantly improve the performance of concept extraction from clinical narratives by taking advantage of word distribution information obtained from unannotated data.

Indexed as

SemanticsData MiningDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansMEDLINENatural Language ProcessingUnified Medical Language System

Identifiers

PMID22085698
PMCPMC3272090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.