ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2018
A method for harmonization of clinical abbreviation and acronym sense inventories.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- "No BLT": The Rise and Risk of Acronyms in the Medical Record.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2026Article
- Analyzing the Creation and Use of Abbreviations in Cardiology and Cardiac Imaging Society Guidelines.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Processing of Short-Form Content in Clinical Narratives: Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Word sense disambiguation of acronyms in clinical narratives.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Sequence Labeling for Disambiguating Medical Abbreviations.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2023Article
- Article
- Disambiguating Clinical Abbreviations Using a One-Fits-All Classifier Based on Deep Learning Techniques.Methods of information in medicine · 2022Article
- A deep database of medical abbreviations and acronyms for natural language processing.Scientific data · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious research has developed methods to construct acronym sense inventories from a single institutional corpus. Although beneficial, a sense inventory constructed from a single institutional corpus is not generalizable, because acronyms from different geographic regions and medical specialties vary greatly.
objectiveDevelop an automated method to harmonize sense inventories from different regions and specialties towards the development of a comprehensive inventory.
methodsThe method involves integrating multiple source sense inventories into one centralized inventory and cross-mapping redundant entries to establish synonymy. To evaluate our method, we integrated 8 well-known source inventories into one comprehensive inventory (or metathesaurus). For both the metathesaurus and its sources, we evaluated the coverage of acronyms and their senses on a corpus of 1 million clinical notes. The corpus came from a different institution, region, and specialty than the source inventories.
resultsIn the evaluation using clinical notes, the metathesaurus demonstrated an acronym (short form) micro-coverage of 94.3%, representing a substantial increase over the two next largest source inventories, the UMLS LRABR (74.8%) and ADAM (68.0%). The metathesaurus demonstrated a sense (long form) micro-coverage of 99.6%, again a substantial increase compared to the UMLS LRABR (82.5%) and ADAM (55.4%).
conclusionsGiven the high coverage, harmonizing acronym sense inventories is a promising methodology to improve their comprehensiveness. Our method is automated, leverages the extensive resources already devoted to developing institution-specific inventories in the United States, and may help generalize sense inventories to institutions who lack the resources to develop them. Future work should address quality issues in source inventories and explore additional approaches to establishing synonymy.
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.