Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24083058›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2013

Extracting laboratory test information from biomedical text.

Yanna Shen Kang, Mehmet Kayaalp

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Automated Analysis of Public Health Laboratory Test Results.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2020
    Article
  2. Correlating Lab Test Results in Clinical Notes with Structured Lab Data: A Case Study in HbA1c and Glucose.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2017
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yanna Shen KangCenter for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Mehmet Kayaalp
National Institutes of Health · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · US

Funding

NLM's Software Application to De-identify Clinical Text DocumentsZIALM010002 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI KAYAALP, MEHMET · 2010 to 2020
$5.9M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNo previous study reported the efficacy of current natural language processing (NLP) methods for extracting laboratory test information from narrative documents. This study investigates the pathology informatics question of how accurately such information can be extracted from text with the current tools and techniques, especially machine learning and symbolic NLP methods. The study data came from a text corpus maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, containing a rich set of information on laboratory tests and test devices.

methodsTHE AUTHORS DEVELOPED A SYMBOLIC INFORMATION EXTRACTION (SIE) SYSTEM TO EXTRACT DEVICE AND TEST SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT FOUR TYPES OF LABORATORY TEST ENTITIES: Specimens, analytes, units of measures and detection limits. They compared the performance of SIE and three prominent machine learning based NLP systems, LingPipe, GATE and BANNER, each implementing a distinct supervised machine learning method, hidden Markov models, support vector machines and conditional random fields, respectively.

resultsMachine learning systems recognized laboratory test entities with moderately high recall, but low precision rates. Their recall rates were relatively higher when the number of distinct entity values (e.g., the spectrum of specimens) was very limited or when lexical morphology of the entity was distinctive (as in units of measures), yet SIE outperformed them with statistically significant margins on extracting specimen, analyte and detection limit information in both precision and F-measure. Its high recall performance was statistically significant on analyte information extraction.

conclusionsDespite its shortcomings against machine learning methods, a well-tailored symbolic system may better discern relevancy among a pile of information of the same type and may outperform a machine learning system by tapping into lexically non-local contextual information such as the document structure.

Indexed as

Biomedical information extractionextraction of laboratory test informationinformation extractionmachine learningsymbolic named-entity recognition

Identifiers

PMID24083058
PMCPMC3779392
OpenAlexW2002661695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.