Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26293868›Full record

SynthesisYearbook of medical informatics2015

Clinical Natural Language Processing in 2014: Foundational Methods Supporting Efficient Healthcare.

A Névéol, P Zweigenbaum

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Customization scenarios for de-identification of clinical notes.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. From Sour Grapes to Low-Hanging Fruit: A Case Study Demonstrating a Practical Strategy for Natural Language Processing Portability.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2018
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. 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.

A NévéolAurélie Névéol, LIMSI CNRS UPR 3251, Rue John von Neumann, Campus Universitaire d'Orsay, 91405 Orsay cedex, France, E-mail: {neveol,pz}@limsi.fr.
P Zweigenbaum

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo summarize recent research and present a selection of the best papers published in 2014 in the field of clinical Natural Language Processing (NLP).

methodA systematic review of the literature was performed by the two section editors of the IMIA Yearbook NLP section by searching bibliographic databases with a focus on NLP efforts applied to clinical texts or aimed at a clinical outcome. A shortlist of candidate best papers was first selected by the section editors before being peer-reviewed by independent external reviewers.

resultsThe clinical NLP best paper selection shows that the field is tackling text analysis methods of increasing depth. The full review process highlighted five papers addressing foundational methods in clinical NLP using clinically relevant texts from online forums or encyclopedias, clinical texts from Electronic Health Records, and included studies specifically aiming at a practical clinical outcome. The increased access to clinical data that was made possible with the recent progress of de-identification paved the way for the scientific community to address complex NLP problems such as word sense disambiguation, negation, temporal analysis and specific information nugget extraction. These advances in turn allowed for efficient application of NLP to clinical problems such as cancer patient triage. Another line of research investigates online clinically relevant texts and brings interesting insight on communication strategies to convey health-related information.

conclusionsThe field of clinical NLP is thriving through the contributions of both NLP researchers and healthcare professionals interested in applying NLP techniques for concrete healthcare purposes. Clinical NLP is becoming mature for practical applications with a significant clinical impact.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingElectronic Health RecordsHumansInternetSocial SupportStatistics as TopicAwards and PrizesComputer-AssistedDecision MakingMedical Informatics/trendsNatural Language ProcessingSemantics

Identifiers

PMID26293868
PMCPMC4587052

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.