ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2018
Usability Evaluation of an Unstructured Clinical Document Query Tool for Researchers.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural Language Understanding to Assess Oral Health-Related Quality of Life: A Cross-Sectional Study Incorporating a Mixed Methods Approach.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Test Performance of Cervical Cytology Among Adults With vs Without Human Papillomavirus Vaccination.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Improving COVID-19 Research of University Hospitals in Germany: Formative Usability Evaluation of the CODEX Feasibility Portal.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
- Translational NLP: A New Paradigm and General Principles for Natural Language Processing Research.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. North American Chapter. Meeting · 2021Article
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
Natural Language Processing - Patient Information Extraction for Researchers (NLP-PIER) was developed for clinical researchers for self-service Natural Language Processing (NLP) queries with clinical notes. This study was to conduct a user-centered analysis with clinical researchers to gain insight into NLP-PIER's usability and to gain an understanding of the needs of clinical researchers when using an application for searching clinical notes. Clinical researcher participants (n=11) completed tasks using the system's two existing search interfaces and completed a set of surveys and an exit interview. Quantitative data including time on task, task completion rate, and survey responses were collected. Interviews were analyzed qualitatively. Survey scores, time on task and task completion proportions varied widely. Qualitative analysis indicated that participants found the system to be useful and usable in specific projects. This study identified several usability challenges and our findings will guide the improvement of NLP-PIER 's interfaces.
Identifiers
29888047PMC5961783What 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.