Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22781192›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Using domain knowledge and domain-inspired discourse model for coreference resolution for clinical narratives.

Prateek Jindal, Dan Roth

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. "Big data" and the electronic health record.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2014
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Document Sublanguage Clustering to Detect Medical Specialty in Cross-institutional Clinical Texts.Proceedings of the ACM ... International Workshop on Data and Text Mining in Biomedical Informatics. ACM International Workshop on Data and Text Mining in Biomedical Informatics
    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

2 authors.

Prateek JindalDepartment of Computer Science, UIUC, Urbana, IL 61801, USA. jindal2@illinois.edu
Dan Roth

Funding

Informatics for Integrating Biology/ the Bedside (RMI)U54LM008748 · NLM · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI KOHANE, ISAAC S. · 2004 to 2013
$39.0M
Institutional Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000003 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI FITZGERALD, GARRET A · 2012 to 2015
$38.9M
Challenges in Natural Language Processing in Clinical TextR13LM011411 · NLM · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY · PI UZUNER, OZLEM · 2012 to 2016
$98k
NCATS NIH HHS HHS 90TR0003/01NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000003NLM NIH HHS R13 LM011411NLM NIH HHS U54 LM008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis paper presents a coreference resolution system for clinical narratives. Coreference resolution aims at clustering all mentions in a single document to coherent entities. MATERIALS AND

methodsA knowledge-intensive approach for coreference resolution is employed. The domain knowledge used includes several domain-specific lists, a knowledge intensive mention parsing, and task informed discourse model. Mention parsing allows us to abstract over the surface form of the mention and represent each mention using a higher-level representation, which we call the mention's semantic representation (SR). SR reduces the mention to a standard form and hence provides better support for comparing and matching. Existing coreference resolution systems tend to ignore discourse aspects and rely heavily on lexical and structural cues in the text. The authors break from this tradition and present a discourse model for "person" type mentions in clinical narratives, which greatly simplifies the coreference resolution.

resultsThis system was evaluated on four different datasets which were made available in the 2011 i2b2/VA coreference challenge. The unweighted average of F1 scores (over B-cubed, MUC and CEAF) varied from 84.2% to 88.1%. These experiments show that domain knowledge is effective for different mention types for all the datasets. DISCUSSION: Error analysis shows that most of the recall errors made by the system can be handled by further addition of domain knowledge. The precision errors, on the other hand, are more subtle and indicate the need to understand the relations in which mentions participate for building a robust coreference system.

conclusionThis paper presents an approach that makes an extensive use of domain knowledge to significantly improve coreference resolution. The authors state that their system and the knowledge sources developed will be made publicly available.

Indexed as

Data MiningElectronic Health RecordsNarrationNatural Language ProcessingHumansIllinoisPattern Recognition, AutomatedSemantics

Identifiers

PMID22781192
PMCPMC3638172

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.