Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26174442›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015

Automatic classification of diseases from free-text death certificates for real-time surveillance.

Bevan Koopman, Sarvnaz Karimi, Anthony Nguyen, Rhydwyn McGuire, David Muscatello, Madonna Kemp, Donna Truran, Ming Zhang, Sarah Thackway

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. EHR problem list clustering for improved topic-space navigation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bevan KoopmanAustralian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. bevan.koopman@csiro.au.
Sarvnaz KarimiAustralian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Anthony NguyenAustralian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Rhydwyn McGuireNSW Ministry of Health, North Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
David MuscatelloNSW Ministry of Health, North Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Madonna KempAustralian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Donna TruranAustralian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Ming ZhangAustralian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Sarah ThackwayNSW Ministry of Health, North Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Australian e-Health Research Centre · AUNew South Wales Department of Health · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeath certificates provide an invaluable source for mortality statistics which can be used for surveillance and early warnings of increases in disease activity and to support the development and monitoring of prevention or response strategies. However, their value can be realised only if accurate, quantitative data can be extracted from death certificates, an aim hampered by both the volume and variable nature of certificates written in natural language. This study aims to develop a set of machine learning and rule-based methods to automatically classify death certificates according to four high impact diseases of interest: diabetes, influenza, pneumonia and HIV.

methodsTwo classification methods are presented: i) a machine learning approach, where detailed features (terms, term n-grams and SNOMED CT concepts) are extracted from death certificates and used to train a set of supervised machine learning models (Support Vector Machines); and ii) a set of keyword-matching rules. These methods were used to identify the presence of diabetes, influenza, pneumonia and HIV in a death certificate. An empirical evaluation was conducted using 340,142 death certificates, divided between training and test sets, covering deaths from 2000-2007 in New South Wales, Australia. Precision and recall (positive predictive value and sensitivity) were used as evaluation measures, with F-measure providing a single, overall measure of effectiveness. A detailed error analysis was performed on classification errors.

resultsClassification of diabetes, influenza, pneumonia and HIV was highly accurate (F-measure 0.96). More fine-grained ICD-10 classification effectiveness was more variable but still high (F-measure 0.80). The error analysis revealed that word variations as well as certain word combinations adversely affected classification. In addition, anomalies in the ground truth likely led to an underestimation of the effectiveness.

conclusionsThe high accuracy and low cost of the classification methods allow for an effective means for automatic and real-time surveillance of diabetes, influenza, pneumonia and HIV deaths. In addition, the methods are generally applicable to other diseases of interest and to other sources of medical free-text besides death certificates.

Indexed as

ClassificationDeath CertificatesEpidemiological MonitoringMachine LearningHumansNew South Wales

Identifiers

PMID26174442
PMCPMC4502908
OpenAlexW1550668049

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.