Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31094361›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2019

Identifying Clinical Terms in Medical Text Using Ontology-Guided Machine Learning.

Aryan Arbabi, David R Adams, Sanja Fidler, Michael Brudno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. PheNormGPT: a framework for extraction and normalization of key medical findings.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024
    Article
  8. A hybrid framework with large language models for rare disease phenotyping.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. An evaluation of GPT models for phenotype concept recognition.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Aryan ArbabiDepartment of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0440-9087
David R AdamsSection on Human Biochemical Genetics, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6660-1242
Sanja FidlerDepartment of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1040-3260
Michael BrudnoDepartment of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7947-2243

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomatic recognition of medical concepts in unstructured text is an important component of many clinical and research applications, and its accuracy has a large impact on electronic health record analysis. The mining of medical concepts is complicated by the broad use of synonyms and nonstandard terms in medical documents.

objectiveWe present a machine learning model for concept recognition in large unstructured text, which optimizes the use of ontological structures and can identify previously unobserved synonyms for concepts in the ontology.

methodsWe present a neural dictionary model that can be used to predict if a phrase is synonymous to a concept in a reference ontology. Our model, called the Neural Concept Recognizer (NCR), uses a convolutional neural network to encode input phrases and then rank medical concepts based on the similarity in that space. It uses the hierarchical structure provided by the biomedical ontology as an implicit prior embedding to better learn embedding of various terms. We trained our model on two biomedical ontologies-the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms (SNOMED-CT).

resultsWe tested our model trained on HPO by using two different data sets: 288 annotated PubMed abstracts and 39 clinical reports. We achieved 1.7%-3% higher F1-scores than those for our strongest manually engineered rule-based baselines (P=.003). We also tested our model trained on the SNOMED-CT by using 2000 Intensive Care Unit discharge summaries from MIMIC (Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care) and achieved 0.9%-1.3% higher F1-scores than those of our baseline. The results of our experiments show high accuracy of our model as well as the value of using the taxonomy structure of the ontology in concept recognition.

conclusionMost popular medical concept recognizers rely on rule-based models, which cannot generalize well to unseen synonyms. In addition, most machine learning methods typically require large corpora of annotated text that cover all classes of concepts, which can be extremely difficult to obtain for biomedical ontologies. Without relying on large-scale labeled training data or requiring any custom training, our model can be efficiently generalized to new synonyms and performs as well or better than state-of-the-art methods custom built for specific ontologies.

Indexed as

biomedical ontologiesconcept recognitionhuman phenotype ontologymachine learningmedical text miningphenotyping

Identifiers

PMID31094361
PMCPMC6533869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.