Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29783980›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2018

Automated extraction of Biomarker information from pathology reports.

Jeongeun Lee, Hyun-Je Song, Eunsil Yoon, Seong-Bae Park, Sung-Hye Park, Jeong-Wook Seo, Peom Park, Jinwook Choi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. PathologyBERT - Pre-trained Vs. A New Transformer Language Model for Pathology Domain.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022
    Article
  9. Limitations of Transformers on Clinical Text Classification.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors.

Jeongeun LeeInterdisciplinary Program for Bioengineering, Graduate School, Seoul National Universty, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyun-Je SongSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Eunsil YoonPAS1 team, TmaxSoft, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Seong-Bae ParkSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Sung-Hye ParkDepartment of Pathology, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jeong-Wook SeoDepartment of Pathology, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Peom ParkDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Ajou University, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Jinwook ChoiInterdisciplinary Program for Bioengineering, Graduate School, Seoul National Universty, Seoul, Republic of Korea. jinchoi@snu.ac.kr.ORCID 0000-0002-9424-9944

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPathology reports are written in free-text form, which precludes efficient data gathering. We aimed to overcome this limitation and design an automated system for extracting biomarker profiles from accumulated pathology reports.

methodsWe designed a new data model for representing biomarker knowledge. The automated system parses immunohistochemistry reports based on a "slide paragraph" unit defined as a set of immunohistochemistry findings obtained for the same tissue slide. Pathology reports are parsed using context-free grammar for immunohistochemistry, and using a tree-like structure for surgical pathology. The performance of the approach was validated on manually annotated pathology reports of 100 randomly selected patients managed at Seoul National University Hospital.

resultsHigh F-scores were obtained for parsing biomarker name and corresponding test results (0.999 and 0.998, respectively) from the immunohistochemistry reports, compared to relatively poor performance for parsing surgical pathology findings. However, applying the proposed approach to our single-center dataset revealed information on 221 unique biomarkers, which represents a richer result than biomarker profiles obtained based on the published literature. Owing to the data representation model, the proposed approach can associate biomarker profiles extracted from an immunohistochemistry report with corresponding pathology findings listed in one or more surgical pathology reports. Term variations are resolved by normalization to corresponding preferred terms determined by expanded dictionary look-up and text similarity-based search.

conclusionsOur proposed approach for biomarker data extraction addresses key limitations regarding data representation and can handle reports prepared in the clinical setting, which often contain incomplete sentences, typographical errors, and inconsistent formatting.

Indexed as

BiomarkersClinical Decision-MakingImmunohistochemistryModels, TheoreticalNatural Language ProcessingHumansNeoplasmsBiomarkersBiomarkersCancer disease knowledge representation modelClinical decision-makingNatural language processingPathology reports

Identifiers

PMID29783980
PMCPMC5963015

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.