Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30815119›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2018

CDA-Compliant Section Annotation of German-Language Discharge Summaries: Guideline Development, Annotation Campaign, Section Classification.

Christina Lohr, Stephanie Luther, Franz Matthies, Luise Modersohn, Danny Ammon, Kutaiba Saleh, Andreas G Henkel, Michael Kiehntopf, Udo Hahn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Automated sample annotation for diabetes mellitus in healthcare integrated biobanking.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Christina LohrJena University Language & Information Engineering (JULIE) Lab, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Germany.
Stephanie LutherJena University Language & Information Engineering (JULIE) Lab, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Germany.
Franz MatthiesJena University Language & Information Engineering (JULIE) Lab, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Germany.
Luise ModersohnJena University Language & Information Engineering (JULIE) Lab, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Germany.
Danny AmmonData Integration Center, IT Business Division, Jena University Hospital.
Kutaiba SalehData Integration Center, IT Business Division, Jena University Hospital.
Andreas G HenkelData Integration Center, IT Business Division, Jena University Hospital.
Michael KiehntopfDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics and Integrated Biobank Jena (IBBJ), Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Udo HahnJena University Language & Information Engineering (JULIE) Lab, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present the outcome of an annotation effort targeting the content-sensitive segmentation of German clinical reports into sections. We recruited an annotation team of up to eight medical students to annotate a clinical text corpus on a sentence-by-sentence basis in four pre-annotation iterations and one final main annotation step. The annotation scheme we came up with adheres to categories developed for clinical documents in the HL7-CDA (Clinical Document Architecture) standard for section headings. Once the scheme became stable, we ran the main annotation campaign on the complete set of roughly 1,000 clinical documents. Due to its reliance on the CDA standard, the annotation scheme allows the integration of legacy and newly produced clinical documents within a common pipeline. We then made direct use of the annotations by training a baseline classifier to automatically identify sections in clinical reports.

Indexed as

LanguageData CurationGermanyHumansPatient Discharge Summaries

Identifiers

PMID30815119
PMCPMC6371337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.