ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2015
Domain adaption of parsing for operative notes.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parsing clinical text using the state-of-the-art deep learning based parsers: a systematic comparison.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Clinical Natural Language Processing in 2015: Leveraging the Variety of Texts of Clinical Interest.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Article
- Text Mining the History of Medicine.PloS one · 2016Article
- Semantic Role Labeling of Clinical Text: Comparing Syntactic Parsers and Features.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFull syntactic parsing of clinical text as a part of clinical natural language processing (NLP) is critical for a wide range of applications. Several robust syntactic parsers are publicly available to produce linguistic representations for sentences. However, these existing parsers are mostly trained on general English text and may require adaptation for optimal performance on clinical text. Our objective was to adapt an existing general English parser for the clinical text of operative reports via lexicon augmentation, statistics adjusting, and grammar rules modification based on operative reports.
methodThe Stanford unlexicalized probabilistic context-free grammar (PCFG) parser lexicon was expanded with SPECIALIST lexicon along with statistics collected from a limited set of operative notes tagged by two POS taggers (GENIA tagger and MedPost). The most frequently occurring verb entries of the SPECIALIST lexicon were adjusted based on manual review of verb usage in operative notes. Stanford parser grammar production rules were also modified based on linguistic features of operative reports. An analogous approach was then applied to the GENIA corpus to test the generalizability of this approach to biologic text.
resultsThe new unlexicalized PCFG parser extended with the extra lexicon from SPECIALIST along with accurate statistics collected from an operative note corpus tagged with GENIA POS tagger improved the F-score by 2.26% from 87.64% to 89.90%. There was a progressive improvement with the addition of multiple approaches. Lexicon augmentation combined with statistics from the operative notes corpus provided the greatest improvement of parser performance. Application of this approach on the GENIA corpus increased the F-score by 3.81% with a simple new grammar and addition of the GENIA corpus lexicon.
conclusionUsing statistics collected from clinical text tagged with POS taggers along with proper modification of grammars and lexicons of an unlexicalized PCFG parser may improve parsing performance of existing parsers on specialized clinical text.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.