ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2011
Qualitative analysis of workflow modifications used to generate the reference standard for the 2010 i2b2/VA challenge.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- LitTx: A New Treatment Relation Extraction Dataset.LREC ... International Conference on Language Resources & Evaluation : [proceedings]. International Conference on Language Resources & Evaluation · 2026Article
- Automatic identification of heart failure diagnostic criteria, using text analysis of clinical notes from electronic health records.International journal of medical informatics · 2014Article
- The relationship between structural characteristics of 2010 challenge documents and ratings of document quality.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) team partnered to generate the reference standard for the 2010 i2b2/VA challenge task on concept extraction, assertion classification, and relation classification. The purpose of this paper is to report an in-depth qualitative analysis of the experience and perceptions of human annotators for these tasks. Transcripts of semi-structured interviews were analyzed using qualitative methods to identify key constructs and themes related to these annotation tasks. Interventions were embedded with these tasks using pre-annotation of clinical concepts and a modified annotation workflow. From the human perspective, annotation tasks involve an inherent conflict between bias, accuracy, and efficiency. This analysis deepens understanding of the biases, complexities and impact of variations in the annotation process that may affect annotation task reliability and reference standard validity that are generalizable for other similar large-scale clinical corpus annotation projects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22195185PMC3243132What 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.