ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2019
Validity of Natural Language Processing for Ascertainment of
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- ImpACT Project: Improving Access to Clinical Trials in Victoria, an Artificial Intelligence-Based Approach.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessment of Electronic Health Record for Cancer Research and Patient Care Through a Scoping Review of Cancer Natural Language Processing.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2022Article
- Out-of-Pocket Costs for Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors and Patient Outcomes inJCO oncology practice · 2021Article
- Informatics Methods and Infrastructure Needed to Study Factors Associated with High Incidence of Pediatric Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors in Kentucky.Journal of registry management · 2020Article
- Cross-registry neural domain adaptation to extract mutational test results from pathology reports.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2019Article
- Machine learning-based natural language processing to extract PD-L1 expression levels from clinical notes.Health informatics journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSEER registries do not report results of epidermal growth factor receptor (
methodsWe obtained 4,278 e-path reports from 1,634 patients who were diagnosed with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC from September 1, 2011, to December 31, 2013, included in CSS. We used 855 CSS reports to train NLP systems for the ascertainment of
resultsNLP systems yielded internal validity metrics that ranged from 0.95 to 1.00 for
conclusionNLP is an internally valid method for the ascertainment of
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.