Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31584655›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020

2018 n2c2 shared task on adverse drug events and medication extraction in electronic health records.

Sam Henry, Kevin Buchan, Michele Filannino, Amber Stubbs, Ozlem Uzuner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. AI-Based Automation for Medication Reconciliation: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Information extraction from clinical notes: are we ready to switch to large language models?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Curation and Extraction of Drug-Related Entities from Reddit Platform.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2026
    Article

62 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

5 authors.

Sam HenryDepartment is Information Sciences and Technology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Kevin BuchanDepartment of Information Science, University at Albany - State University of New York, Albany, New York, USA.
Michele FilanninoDepartment is Information Sciences and Technology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Amber StubbsDepartment is Mathematics and Computer Science, Simmons University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ozlem UzunerDepartment is Information Sciences and Technology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.

Funding

National NLP Clinical Challenges (n2c2): Challenges in Natural Language Processing for Clinical NarrativesR13LM013127 · NLM · GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY · PI UZUNER, OZLEM · 2019 to 2023
$100k
Challenges in Natural Language Processing in Clinical TextR13LM011411 · NLM · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY · PI UZUNER, OZLEM · 2012 to 2016
$98k
NLM NIH HHS R13 LM011411NLM NIH HHS R13 LM013127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis article summarizes the preparation, organization, evaluation, and results of Track 2 of the 2018 National NLP Clinical Challenges shared task. Track 2 focused on extraction of adverse drug events (ADEs) from clinical records and evaluated 3 tasks: concept extraction, relation classification, and end-to-end systems. We perform an analysis of the results to identify the state of the art in these tasks, learn from it, and build on it. MATERIALS AND

methodsFor all tasks, teams were given raw text of narrative discharge summaries, and in all the tasks, participants proposed deep learning-based methods with hand-designed features. In the concept extraction task, participants used sequence labelling models (bidirectional long short-term memory being the most popular), whereas in the relation classification task, they also experimented with instance-based classifiers (namely support vector machines and rules). Ensemble methods were also popular.

resultsA total of 28 teams participated in task 1, with 21 teams in tasks 2 and 3. The best performing systems set a high performance bar with F1 scores of 0.9418 for concept extraction, 0.9630 for relation classification, and 0.8905 for end-to-end. However, the results were much lower for concepts and relations of Reasons and ADEs. These were often missed because local context is insufficient to identify them.

conclusionsThis challenge shows that clinical concept extraction and relation classification systems have a high performance for many concept types, but significant improvement is still required for ADEs and Reasons. Incorporating the larger context or outside knowledge will likely improve the performance of future systems.

Indexed as

Deep LearningDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsElectronic Health RecordsNatural Language ProcessingSupport Vector MachineDatasets as TopicHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalPatient Discharge Summaries

Identifiers

PMID31584655
PMCPMC7489085

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.