Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27370271›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2016

Normalizing acronyms and abbreviations to aid patient understanding of clinical texts: ShARe/CLEF eHealth Challenge 2013, Task 2.

Danielle L Mowery, Brett R South, Lee Christensen, Jianwei Leng, Laura-Maria Peltonen, Sanna Salanterä, Hanna Suominen, David Martinez, Sumithra Velupillai, Noémie Elhadad and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A scoping review of publicly available language tasks in clinical natural language processing.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors.

Danielle L MoweryDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. danielle.mowery@utah.edu.
Brett R SouthDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Lee ChristensenDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Jianwei LengDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Laura-Maria PeltonenNursing Science, University of Turku, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Sanna SalanteräNursing Science, University of Turku, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Hanna SuominenData61, CSIRO, The Australian National University, University of Canberra, and University of Turku, Locked Bag 8001, Canberra, 2601, ACT, Australia.
David MartinezMedWhat.com, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Sumithra VelupillaiDepartment of Computer and Systems Sciences (DSV), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Noémie ElhadadDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Guergana SavovaBoston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Sameer PradhanBoston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Wendy W ChapmanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

The internship in Biomedical Research, Informatics, and Computer Science (iBRIC): Biomedical Informatics and Data Science research experiences for students from Minority Serving InstitutionsT15LM007059 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI HARRY S HOCHHEISER · 1987 to 2026
$23.9M
UC Davis Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR000002 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BERGLUND, LARS F · 2012 to 2015
$12.2M
Annotation, development and evaluation for clinical information extraction (transfer)R01GM090187 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI CHAPMAN, WENDY W., ELHADAD, NOEMIE · 2010 to 2013
$2.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000002NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM090187NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ShARe/CLEF eHealth challenge lab aims to stimulate development of natural language processing and information retrieval technologies to aid patients in understanding their clinical reports. In clinical text, acronyms and abbreviations, also referenced as short forms, can be difficult for patients to understand. For one of three shared tasks in 2013 (Task 2), we generated a reference standard of clinical short forms normalized to the Unified Medical Language System. This reference standard can be used to improve patient understanding by linking to web sources with lay descriptions of annotated short forms or by substituting short forms with a more simplified, lay term.

methodsIn this study, we evaluate 1) accuracy of participating systems' normalizing short forms compared to a majority sense baseline approach, 2) performance of participants' systems for short forms with variable majority sense distributions, and 3) report the accuracy of participating systems' normalizing shared normalized concepts between the test set and the Consumer Health Vocabulary, a vocabulary of lay medical terms.

resultsThe best systems submitted by the five participating teams performed with accuracies ranging from 43 to 72 %. A majority sense baseline approach achieved the second best performance. The performance of participating systems for normalizing short forms with two or more senses with low ambiguity (majority sense greater than 80 %) ranged from 52 to 78 % accuracy, with two or more senses with moderate ambiguity (majority sense between 50 and 80 %) ranged from 23 to 57 % accuracy, and with two or more senses with high ambiguity (majority sense less than 50 %) ranged from 2 to 45 % accuracy. With respect to the ShARe test set, 69 % of short form annotations contained common concept unique identifiers with the Consumer Health Vocabulary. For these 2594 possible annotations, the performance of participating systems ranged from 50 to 75 % accuracy.

conclusionShort form normalization continues to be a challenging problem. Short form normalization systems perform with moderate to reasonable accuracies. The Consumer Health Vocabulary could enrich its knowledge base with missed concept unique identifiers from the ShARe test set to further support patient understanding of unfamiliar medical terms.

Indexed as

Biological OntologiesNatural Language ProcessingTelemedicineHumansAbbreviationsAcronymsConsumer health informationNatural language processingUnified Medical Language System

Identifiers

PMID27370271
PMCPMC4930590

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.