Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28342946›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2017

NegAIT: A new parser for medical text simplification using morphological, sentential and double negation.

Partha Mukherjee, Gondy Leroy, David Kauchak, Srinidhi Rajanarayanan, Damian Y Romero Diaz, Nicole P Yuan, T Gail Pritchard, Sonia Colina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A survey of automated methods for biomedical text simplification.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Article
  4. Paragraph-level Simplification of Medical Texts.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. North American Chapter. Meeting · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Natural Language Processing for EHR-Based Computational Phenotyping.IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics
    Review
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

8 authors.

Partha MukherjeeUniversity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States. Electronic address: parthamukherjee@email.arizona.edu.
Gondy LeroyUniversity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
David KauchakPomona College, Claremont, CA, United States.
Srinidhi RajanarayananUniversity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Damian Y Romero DiazUniversity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Nicole P YuanUniversity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
T Gail PritchardUniversity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Sonia ColinaUniversity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.

Funding

Evidence-based Strategy and Tool to Simplify Text for Patients and ConsumersR01LM011975 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI LEROY, GONDY · 2015 to 2024
$2.9M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011975
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many different text features influence text readability and content comprehension. Negation is commonly suggested as one such feature, but few general-purpose tools exist to discover negation and studies of the impact of negation on text readability are rare. In this paper, we introduce a new negation parser (NegAIT) for detecting morphological, sentential, and double negation. We evaluated the parser using a human annotated gold standard containing 500 Wikipedia sentences and achieved 95%, 89% and 67% precision with 100%, 80%, and 67% recall, respectively. We also investigate two applications of this new negation parser. First, we performed a corpus statistics study to demonstrate different negation usage in easy and difficult text. Negation usage was compared in six corpora: patient blogs (4K sentences), Cochrane reviews (91K sentences), PubMed abstracts (20K sentences), clinical trial texts (48K sentences), and English and Simple English Wikipedia articles for different medical topics (60K and 6K sentences). The most difficult text contained the least negation. However, when comparing negation types, difficult texts (i.e., Cochrane, PubMed, English Wikipedia and clinical trials) contained significantly (p<0.01) more morphological negations. Second, we conducted a predictive analytics study to show the importance of negation in distinguishing between easy and difficulty text. Five binary classifiers (Naïve Bayes, SVM, decision tree, logistic regression and linear regression) were trained using only negation information. All classifiers achieved better performance than the majority baseline. The Naïve Bayes' classifier achieved the highest accuracy at 77% (9% higher than the majority baseline).

Indexed as

Data CurationNatural Language ProcessingSoftwareBayes TheoremComprehensionHumansLanguageMedical InformaticsHealth literacyNegationNLPReadabilityText simplification

Identifiers

PMID28342946
PMCPMC5933936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.