ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019
An approach for medical event detection in Chinese clinical notes of electronic health records.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning in clinical natural language processing: a methodical review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Review
- Comparison of Word Embeddings for Extraction from Medical Records.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical event detection in narrative clinical notes of electronic health records (EHRs) is a task designed for reading text and extracting information. Most of the previous work of medical event detection treats the task as extracting concepts at word granularity, which omits the overall structural information of the clinical notes. In this work, we treat each clinical note as a sequence of short sentences and propose an end-to-end deep neural network framework.
methodsWe redefined the task as a sequence labelling task at short sentence granularity, and proposed a novel tag system correspondingly. The dataset were derived from a third-level grade-A hospital, consisting of 2000 annotated clinical notes according to our proposed tag system. The proposed end-to-end deep neural network framework consists of a feature extractor and a sequence labeller, and we explored different implementations respectively. We additionally proposed a smoothed Viterbi decoder as sequence labeller without additional parameter training, which can be a good alternative to conditional random field (CRF) when computing resources are limited.
resultsOur sequence labelling models were compared to four baselines which treat the task as text classification of short sentences. Experimental results showed that our approach significantly outperforms the baselines. The best result was obtained by using the convolutional neural networks (CNNs) feature extractor and the sequential CRF sequence labeller, achieving an accuracy of 92.6%. Our proposed smoothed Viterbi decoder achieved a comparable accuracy of 90.07% with reduced training parameters, and brought more balanced performance across all categories, which means better generalization ability.
conclusionsEvaluated on our annotated dataset, the comparison results demonstrated the effectiveness of our approach for medical event detection in Chinese clinical notes of EHRs. The best feature extractor is the CNNs feature extractor, and the best sequence labeller is the sequential CRF decoder. And it was empirically verified that our proposed smoothed Viterbi decoder could bring better generalization ability while achieving comparable performance to the sequential CRF decoder.
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.