Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30914179›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of medical informatics2019

A systematic review of natural language processing and text mining of symptoms from electronic patient-authored text data.

Caitlin Dreisbach, Theresa A Koleck, Philip E Bourne, Suzanne Bakken

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of medical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 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

4 authors.

Caitlin DreisbachUniversity of Virginia, School of Nursing, Charlottesville, VA, USA; University of Virginia, Data Science Institute, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Theresa A KoleckColumbia University, School of Nursing, New York, NY, USA.
Philip E BourneUniversity of Virginia, Data Science Institute, Charlottesville, VA, USA; University of Virginia, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Suzanne BakkenColumbia University, School of Nursing, New York, NY, USA; Columbia University, Department of Biomedical Informatics, New York, NY, USA; Columbia University, Data Science Institute, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: sbh22@cumc.columbia.edu.

Funding

Reducing Health Disparities Through Informatics - Genomics SupplementT32NR007969 · NINR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SUZANNE BAKKEN, Rebecca Schnall · 2002 to 2026
$7.9M
Reaching Communities through the Design of Information Visualizations (ReDIVis) Toolbox to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Uptake.P30NR016587 · NINR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI BAKKEN, SUZANNE, SMALDONE, ARLENE M · 2016 to 2022
$4.3M
Advancing Chronic Condition Symptom Cluster Science Through Use of Electronic Health Records and Data Science TechniquesK99NR017651 · NINR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI KOLECK, THERESA ANN · 2018 to 2019
$180k
The influence of maternal obesity on microbial function and impaired glucose tolerance during pregnancyF31NR017821 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI DREISBACH, CAITLIN · 2018 to 2019
$71k
NINR NIH HHS F31 NR017821NINR NIH HHS K99 NR017651NINR NIH HHS P30 NR016587NINR NIH HHS T32 NR007969
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn this systematic review, we aim to synthesize the literature on the use of natural language processing (NLP) and text mining as they apply to symptom extraction and processing in electronic patient-authored text (ePAT). MATERIALS AND

methodsA comprehensive literature search of 1964 articles from PubMed and EMBASE was narrowed to 21 eligible articles. Data related to purpose, text source, number of users and/or posts, evaluation metrics, and quality indicators were recorded.

resultsPain (n = 18) and fatigue and sleep disturbance (n = 18) were the most frequently evaluated symptom clinical content categories. Studies accessed ePAT from sources such as Twitter and online community forums or patient portals focused on diseases, including diabetes, cancer, and depression. Fifteen studies used NLP as a primary methodology. Studies reported evaluation metrics including the precision, recall, and F-measure for symptom-specific research questions. DISCUSSION: NLP and text mining have been used to extract and analyze patient-authored symptom data in a wide variety of online communities. Though there are computational challenges with accessing ePAT, the depth of information provided directly from patients offers new horizons for precision medicine, characterization of sub-clinical symptoms, and the creation of personal health libraries as outlined by the National Library of Medicine.

conclusionFuture research should consider the needs of patients expressed through ePAT and its relevance to symptom science. Understanding the role that ePAT plays in health communication and real-time assessment of symptoms, through the use of NLP and text mining, is critical to a patient-centered health system.

Indexed as

Data MiningElectronic Health RecordsNatural Language ProcessingPatient ParticipationHumansNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)United StatesElectronic patient-authored textNatural language processingReviewSigns and symptoms

Identifiers

PMID30914179
PMCPMC6438188

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.