ArticleMethods of information in medicine2018
Ad Hoc Information Extraction for Clinical Data Warehouses.
Article in Methods of information in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A domain-specific annotation framework and expert-annotated corpus for structured analysis of German HNSCC pathology reports.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Operationalizing Large Language Models for Clinical Research Data Extraction: Methods, Quality Control, and Governance.Journal of medical systems · 2026Review
- Automatic inference of ICD-10 codes from German ophthalmologic physicians' letters using natural language processing.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Clinical Data Warehousing: A Scoping Review.Journal of the Society for Clinical Data Management · 2024Article
- Using a Clinical Data Warehouse to Calculate and Present Key Metrics for the Radiology Department: Implementation and Performance Evaluation.JMIR medical informatics · 2023Article
- Querying a Clinical Data Warehouse for Combinations of Clinical and Imaging Data.Journal of digital imaging · 2023Article
- Covering patient's perspective in case-based critical review articles to improve shared decision making in complex cases.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Review
- Unlocking the PACS DICOM Domain for its Use in Clinical Research Data Warehouses.Journal of digital imaging · 2020Article
- Applying Data Warehousing to a Phase III Clinical Trial From the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi Ensures Superior Data Quality and Improved Assessment of Clinical Outcomes.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2019Article
- Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2018.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2019Article
- Replicating medication trend studies using ad hoc information extraction in a clinical data warehouse.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical Data Warehouses (CDW) reuse Electronic health records (EHR) to make their data retrievable for research purposes or patient recruitment for clinical trials. However, much information are hidden in unstructured data like discharge letters. They can be preprocessed and converted to structured data via information extraction (IE), which is unfortunately a laborious task and therefore usually not available for most of the text data in CDW.
objectivesThe goal of our work is to provide an ad hoc IE service that allows users to query text data ad hoc in a manner similar to querying structured data in a CDW. While search engines just return text snippets, our systems also returns frequencies (e.g. how many patients exist with "heart failure" including textual synonyms or how many patients have an LVEF < 45) based on the content of discharge letters or textual reports for special investigations like heart echo. Three subtasks are addressed: (1) To recognize and to exclude negations and their scopes, (2) to extract concepts, i.e. Boolean values and (3) to extract numerical values.
methodsWe implemented an extended version of the NegEx-algorithm for German texts that detects negations and determines their scope. Furthermore, our document oriented CDW PaDaWaN was extended with query functions, e.g. context sensitive queries and regex queries, and an extraction mode for computing the frequencies for Boolean and numerical values.
resultsEvaluations in chest X-ray reports and in discharge letters showed high F1-scores for the three subtasks: Detection of negated concepts in chest X-ray reports with an F1-score of 0.99 and in discharge letters with 0.97; of Boolean values in chest X-ray reports about 0.99, and of numerical values in chest X-ray reports and discharge letters also around 0.99 with the exception of the concept age. DISCUSSION: The advantages of an ad hoc IE over a standard IE are the low development effort (just entering the concept with its variants), the promptness of the results and the adaptability by the user to his or her particular question. Disadvantage are usually lower accuracy and confidence.This ad hoc information extraction approach is novel and exceeds existing systems: Roogle [1] extracts predefined concepts from texts at preprocessing and makes them retrievable at runtime. Dr. Warehouse [2] applies negation detection and indexes the produced subtexts which include affirmed findings. Our approach combines negation detection and the extraction of concepts. But the extraction does not take place during preprocessing, but at runtime. That provides an ad hoc, dynamic, interactive and adjustable information extraction of random concepts and even their values on the fly at runtime.
conclusionsWe developed an ad hoc information extraction query feature for Boolean and numerical values within a CDW with high recall and precision based on a pipeline that detects and removes negations and their scope in clinical texts.
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.