Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28478268›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2017

The UAB Informatics Institute and 2016 CEGS N-GRID de-identification shared task challenge.

Duy Duc An Bui, Mathew Wyatt, James J Cimino

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 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. Clinical concept extraction: A methodology review.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2020
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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

3 authors.

Duy Duc An BuiInformatics Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States. Electronic address: bdaduy@gmail.com.
Mathew WyattInformatics Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States.
James J CiminoInformatics Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States.

Funding

UAB Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS)UL1TR001417 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI KIMBERLY, ROBERT P. · 2015 to 2018
$31.4M
Research ProjectP50MH106933 · NIMH · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI KOHANE, ISAAC S. · 2014 to 2018
$17.0M
Challenges in Natural Language Processing in Clinical TextR13LM011411 · NLM · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY · PI UZUNER, OZLEM · 2012 to 2016
$98k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001417NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH106933NLM NIH HHS R13 LM011411
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical narratives (the text notes found in patients' medical records) are important information sources for secondary use in research. However, in order to protect patient privacy, they must be de-identified prior to use. Manual de-identification is considered to be the gold standard approach but is tedious, expensive, slow, and impractical for use with large-scale clinical data. Automated or semi-automated de-identification using computer algorithms is a potentially promising alternative. The Informatics Institute of the University of Alabama at Birmingham is applying de-identification to clinical data drawn from the UAB hospital's electronic medical records system before releasing them for research. We participated in a shared task challenge by the Centers of Excellence in Genomic Science (CEGS) Neuropsychiatric Genome-Scale and RDoC Individualized Domains (N-GRID) at the de-identification regular track to gain experience developing our own automatic de-identification tool. We focused on the popular and successful methods from previous challenges: rule-based, dictionary-matching, and machine-learning approaches. We also explored new techniques such as disambiguation rules, term ambiguity measurement, and used multi-pass sieve framework at a micro level. For the challenge's primary measure (strict entity), our submissions achieved competitive results (f-measures: 87.3%, 87.1%, and 86.7%). For our preferred measure (binary token HIPAA), our submissions achieved superior results (f-measures: 93.7%, 93.6%, and 93%). With those encouraging results, we gain the confidence to improve and use the tool for the real de-identification task at the UAB Informatics Institute.

Indexed as

Data AnonymizationInformaticsElectronic Health RecordsHumansMachine LearningTask Performance and AnalysisAutomatic de-identificationClinical natural language processingMachine learningShared task

Identifiers

PMID28478268
PMCPMC5670015

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.