Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26323337›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2015

Automatically Detecting Failures in Natural Language Processing Tools for Online Community Text.

Albert Park, Andrea L Hartzler, Jina Huh, David W McDonald, Wanda Pratt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Healthy vs. Unhealthy Food Images: Image Classification of Twitter Images.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Knowledge Discovery from Posts in Online Health Communities Using Unified Medical Language System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Classifying and Summarizing Information from Microblogs During Epidemics.Information systems frontiers : a journal of research and innovation · 2018
    Article
  11. Detecting clinically related content in online patient posts.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2017
    Article
  12. "We make choices we think are going to save us": Debate and stance identification for online breast cancer CAM discussions.Proceedings of the ... International World-Wide Web Conference. International WWW Conference · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Towards Supporting Patient Decision-making In Online Diabetes Communities.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017
    Article
  16. Correlating Lab Test Results in Clinical Notes with Structured Lab Data: A Case Study in HbA1c and Glucose.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2017
    Article
  17. Tracking Health Related Discussions on Reddit for Public Health Applications.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Leveraging cues from person-generated health data for peer matching in online communities.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016
    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

5 authors.

Albert ParkDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. alpark1216@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2419-0131

Funding

University of Washington Biomedical Informatics and Data Science Research Training ProgramT15LM007442 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JOHN H. GENNARI, Andrea L. Hartzler · 2002 to 2026
$19.6M
InfoMediator: Weaving Clinical Expertise in Online Health CommunitiesK01LM011980 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI HUH-YOO, JINA · 2014 to 2016
$466k
NLM NIH HHS 5T15LM007442-10NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007442
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevalence and value of patient-generated health text are increasing, but processing such text remains problematic. Although existing biomedical natural language processing (NLP) tools are appealing, most were developed to process clinician- or researcher-generated text, such as clinical notes or journal articles. In addition to being constructed for different types of text, other challenges of using existing NLP include constantly changing technologies, source vocabularies, and characteristics of text. These continuously evolving challenges warrant the need for applying low-cost systematic assessment. However, the primarily accepted evaluation method in NLP, manual annotation, requires tremendous effort and time.

objectiveThe primary objective of this study is to explore an alternative approach-using low-cost, automated methods to detect failures (eg, incorrect boundaries, missed terms, mismapped concepts) when processing patient-generated text with existing biomedical NLP tools. We first characterize common failures that NLP tools can make in processing online community text. We then demonstrate the feasibility of our automated approach in detecting these common failures using one of the most popular biomedical NLP tools, MetaMap.

methodsUsing 9657 posts from an online cancer community, we explored our automated failure detection approach in two steps: (1) to characterize the failure types, we first manually reviewed MetaMap's commonly occurring failures, grouped the inaccurate mappings into failure types, and then identified causes of the failures through iterative rounds of manual review using open coding, and (2) to automatically detect these failure types, we then explored combinations of existing NLP techniques and dictionary-based matching for each failure cause. Finally, we manually evaluated the automatically detected failures.

resultsFrom our manual review, we characterized three types of failure: (1) boundary failures, (2) missed term failures, and (3) word ambiguity failures. Within these three failure types, we discovered 12 causes of inaccurate mappings of concepts. We used automated methods to detect almost half of 383,572 MetaMap's mappings as problematic. Word sense ambiguity failure was the most widely occurring, comprising 82.22% of failures. Boundary failure was the second most frequent, amounting to 15.90% of failures, while missed term failures were the least common, making up 1.88% of failures. The automated failure detection achieved precision, recall, accuracy, and F1 score of 83.00%, 92.57%, 88.17%, and 87.52%, respectively.

conclusionsWe illustrate the challenges of processing patient-generated online health community text and characterize failures of NLP tools on this patient-generated health text, demonstrating the feasibility of our low-cost approach to automatically detect those failures. Our approach shows the potential for scalable and effective solutions to automatically assess the constantly evolving NLP tools and source vocabularies to process patient-generated text.

Indexed as

Electronic Data ProcessingInternetNatural Language ProcessingHumansautomatic data processinginformation extractionnatural language processingquantitative evaluationUMLS

Identifiers

PMID26323337
PMCPMC4642409

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.