Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26232443›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2016

Normalizing clinical terms using learned edit distance patterns.

Rohit J Kate

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Recent advances in biomedical literature mining.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The bird's-eye view: A data-driven approach to understanding patient journeys from claims data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. A Hybrid Normalization Method for Medical Concepts in Clinical Narrative using Semantic Matching.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2019
    Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

1 author.

Rohit J KateDepartment of Health Informatics and Administration University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI, USA katerj@uwm.edu katerj@uwm.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVariations of clinical terms are very commonly encountered in clinical texts. Normalization methods that use similarity measures or hand-coded approximation rules for matching clinical terms to standard terminologies have limited accuracy and coverage. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this paper, a novel method is presented that automatically learns patterns of variations of clinical terms from known variations from a resource such as the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). The patterns are first learned by computing edit distances between the known variations, which are then appropriately generalized for normalizing previously unseen terms. The method was applied and evaluated on the disease and disorder mention normalization task using the dataset of SemEval 2014 and compared with the normalization ability of the MetaMap system and a method based on cosine similarity.

resultsExcluding the mentions that already exactly match in UMLS and the training dataset, the proposed method obtained 64.7% accuracy on the rest of the test dataset. The accuracy was calculated as the number of mentions that correctly matched the gold-standard concept unique identifiers (CUIs) or correctly matched to be without a CUI. In comparison, MetaMap's accuracy was 41.9% and cosine similarity's accuracy was 44.6%. When only the output CUIs were evaluated, the proposed method obtained 54.4% best F-measure (at 92.1% precision and 38.6% recall) while MetaMap obtained 19.4% best F-measure (at 38.0% precision and 13.0% recall) and cosine similarity obtained 38.1% best F-measure (at 70.3% precision and 26.1% recall).

conclusionsThe novel method was found to perform much better than the MetaMap system and the cosine similarity based method in normalizing disease mentions in clinical text that did not exactly match in UMLS. The method is also general and can be used for normalizing clinical terms of other semantic types as well.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsNatural Language ProcessingTerminology as TopicUnified Medical Language SystemMachine LearningVocabulary, Controlledclinical termsedit distancenormalization

Identifiers

PMID26232443
PMCPMC11740540

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.