ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2016
A computational framework for converting textual clinical diagnostic criteria into the quality data model.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Artificial Intelligence Can Improve Our Understanding of the Genes Associated with Endometriosis: Natural Language Processing of the PubMed Database.BioMed research international · 2018Review
- Integrating Structured and Unstructured EHR Data Using an FHIR-based Type System: A Case Study with Medication Data.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConstructing standard and computable clinical diagnostic criteria is an important but challenging research field in the clinical informatics community. The Quality Data Model (QDM) is emerging as a promising information model for standardizing clinical diagnostic criteria.
objectiveTo develop and evaluate automated methods for converting textual clinical diagnostic criteria in a structured format using QDM.
methodsWe used a clinical Natural Language Processing (NLP) tool known as cTAKES to detect sentences and annotate events in diagnostic criteria. We developed a rule-based approach for assigning the QDM datatype(s) to an individual criterion, whereas we invoked a machine learning algorithm based on the Conditional Random Fields (CRFs) for annotating attributes belonging to each particular QDM datatype. We manually developed an annotated corpus as the gold standard and used standard measures (precision, recall and f-measure) for the performance evaluation.
resultsWe harvested 267 individual criteria with the datatypes of Symptom and Laboratory Test from 63 textual diagnostic criteria. We manually annotated attributes and values in 142 individual Laboratory Test criteria. The average performance of our rule-based approach was 0.84 of precision, 0.86 of recall, and 0.85 of f-measure; the performance of CRFs-based classification was 0.95 of precision, 0.88 of recall and 0.91 of f-measure. We also implemented a web-based tool that automatically translates textual Laboratory Test criteria into the QDM XML template format. The results indicated that our approaches leveraging cTAKES and CRFs are effective in facilitating diagnostic criteria annotation and classification.
conclusionOur NLP-based computational framework is a feasible and useful solution in developing diagnostic criteria representation and computerization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.