Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22564405›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2012

Recognition of medication information from discharge summaries using ensembles of classifiers.

Son Doan, Nigel Collier, Hua Xu, Hoang Duy Pham, Minh Phuong Tu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. AI-Based Automation for Medication Reconciliation: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Ensemble method-based extraction of medication and related information from clinical texts.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Automatic mining of symptom severity from psychiatric evaluation notes.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Ensembles of NLP Tools for Data Element Extraction from Clinical Notes.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2016
    Article
  11. Article
  12. A Study of Concept Extraction Across Different Types of Clinical Notes.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2015
    Article
  13. A Hybrid Approach to Extracting Disorder Mentions from Clinical Notes.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2015
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. In response to: Method of electronic health record documentation and quality of primary care.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
    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

5 authors.

Son DoanNational Institute of Informatics, Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan. sondoan@gmail.com
Nigel Collier
Hua Xu
Hoang Duy Pham
Minh Phuong Tu

Funding

Informatics for Integrating Biology/ the Bedside (RMI)U54LM008748 · NLM · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI KOHANE, ISAAC S. · 2004 to 2013
$39.0M
NLM NIH HHS U54LM008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtraction of clinical information such as medications or problems from clinical text is an important task of clinical natural language processing (NLP). Rule-based methods are often used in clinical NLP systems because they are easy to adapt and customize. Recently, supervised machine learning methods have proven to be effective in clinical NLP as well. However, combining different classifiers to further improve the performance of clinical entity recognition systems has not been investigated extensively. Combining classifiers into an ensemble classifier presents both challenges and opportunities to improve performance in such NLP tasks.

methodsWe investigated ensemble classifiers that used different voting strategies to combine outputs from three individual classifiers: a rule-based system, a support vector machine (SVM) based system, and a conditional random field (CRF) based system. Three voting methods were proposed and evaluated using the annotated data sets from the 2009 i2b2 NLP challenge: simple majority, local SVM-based voting, and local CRF-based voting.

resultsEvaluation on 268 manually annotated discharge summaries from the i2b2 challenge showed that the local CRF-based voting method achieved the best F-score of 90.84% (94.11% Precision, 87.81% Recall) for 10-fold cross-validation. We then compared our systems with the first-ranked system in the challenge by using the same training and test sets. Our system based on majority voting achieved a better F-score of 89.65% (93.91% Precision, 85.76% Recall) than the previously reported F-score of 89.19% (93.78% Precision, 85.03% Recall) by the first-ranked system in the challenge.

conclusionsOur experimental results using the 2009 i2b2 challenge datasets showed that ensemble classifiers that combine individual classifiers into a voting system could achieve better performance than a single classifier in recognizing medication information from clinical text. It suggests that simple strategies that can be easily implemented such as majority voting could have the potential to significantly improve clinical entity recognition.

Indexed as

Medication SystemsNatural Language ProcessingPatient DischargePattern Recognition, AutomatedAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalInstitutional Management TeamsMalePharmaceutical PreparationsReproducibility of ResultsSemanticsSoftware DesignPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID22564405
PMCPMC3502425

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.