ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2014
Learning to identify treatment relations in clinical text.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2014. 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.
- Broad-coverage biomedical relation extraction with SemRep.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Generalized Extraction and Classification of Span-Level Clinical Phrases.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- Triaging Patient Complaints: Monte Carlo Cross-Validation of Six Machine Learning Classifiers.JMIR medical informatics · 2017Article
- Automatic Generation of Conditional Diagnostic Guidelines.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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In clinical notes, physicians commonly describe reasons why certain treatments are given. However, this information is not typically available in a computable form. We describe a supervised learning system that is able to predict whether or not a treatment relation exists between any two medical concepts mentioned in clinical notes. To train our prediction model, we manually annotated 958 treatment relations in sentences selected from 6,864 discharge summaries. The features used to indicate the existence of a treatment relation between two medical concepts consisted of lexical and semantic information associated with the two concepts as well as information derived from the MEDication Indication (MEDI) resource and SemRep. The best F1-measure results of our supervised learning system (84.90) were significantly better than the F1-measure results achieved by SemRep (72.34).
Indexed as
Identifiers
25954330PMC4419965What 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.