Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30368002›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2018

Using clinical Natural Language Processing for health outcomes research: Overview and actionable suggestions for future advances.

Sumithra Velupillai, Hanna Suominen, Maria Liakata, Angus Roberts, Anoop D Shah, Katherine Morley, David Osborn, Joseph Hayes, Robert Stewart, Johnny Downs and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

102 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors.

Sumithra VelupillaiInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: sumithra.velupillai@kcl.ac.uk.
Hanna SuominenCollege of Engineering and Computer Science, The Australian National University, Data61/CSIRO, University of Canberra, Australia; University of Turku, Finland. Electronic address: Hanna.Suominen@anu.edu.au.
Maria LiakataDepartment of Computer Science, University of Warwick/Alan Turing Institute, UK. Electronic address: m.liakata@warwick.ac.uk.
Angus RobertsInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK. Electronic address: angus.roberts@kcl.ac.uk.
Anoop D ShahInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK; University College London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: anoop@doctors.org.uk.
Katherine MorleyInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: katherine.morley@kcl.ac.uk.
David OsbornDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, UK; Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: davidd.osborn@ucl.ac.uk.
Joseph HayesDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, UK; Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: josephj.hayes@ucl.ac.uk.
Robert StewartInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: robert.stewart@kcl.ac.uk.
Johnny DownsInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: johnny.downs@kcl.ac.uk.
Wendy ChapmanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, United States. Electronic address: wendy.chapman@utah.edu.
Rina DuttaInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: rina.dutta@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

Academy of Medical Sciences CSF004\1004Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_PC_17214Medical Research Council MR/L017105/1Wellcome Trust 109823Wellcome Trust 109823/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of incorporating Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods in clinical informatics research has been increasingly recognized over the past years, and has led to transformative advances. Typically, clinical NLP systems are developed and evaluated on word, sentence, or document level annotations that model specific attributes and features, such as document content (e.g., patient status, or report type), document section types (e.g., current medications, past medical history, or discharge summary), named entities and concepts (e.g., diagnoses, symptoms, or treatments) or semantic attributes (e.g., negation, severity, or temporality). From a clinical perspective, on the other hand, research studies are typically modelled and evaluated on a patient- or population-level, such as predicting how a patient group might respond to specific treatments or patient monitoring over time. While some NLP tasks consider predictions at the individual or group user level, these tasks still constitute a minority. Owing to the discrepancy between scientific objectives of each field, and because of differences in methodological evaluation priorities, there is no clear alignment between these evaluation approaches. Here we provide a broad summary and outline of the challenging issues involved in defining appropriate intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation methods for NLP research that is to be used for clinical outcomes research, and vice versa. A particular focus is placed on mental health research, an area still relatively understudied by the clinical NLP research community, but where NLP methods are of notable relevance. Recent advances in clinical NLP method development have been significant, but we propose more emphasis needs to be placed on rigorous evaluation for the field to advance further. To enable this, we provide actionable suggestions, including a minimal protocol that could be used when reporting clinical NLP method development and its evaluation.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsNatural Language ProcessingSemanticsAlgorithmsData CollectionHumansMedical InformaticsMental DisordersMental Health ServicesOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsClinical informaticsEpidemiologyEvaluationInformation extractionMental Health InformaticsNatural Language ProcessingPublic HealthText analytics

Identifiers

PMID30368002
PMCPMC6986921

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.