Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32968800›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020

The 2019 National Natural language processing (NLP) Clinical Challenges (n2c2)/Open Health NLP (OHNLP) shared task on clinical concept normalization for clinical records.

Sam Henry, Yanshan Wang, Feichen Shen, Ozlem Uzuner

Erratum issuedAbstract 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Towards discovery: an end-to-end system for uncovering novel biomedical relations.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. BELB: a biomedical entity linking benchmark.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A scoping review of publicly available language tasks in clinical natural language processing.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sam HenryDepartment of Information Sciences and Technology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Yanshan WangDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Feichen ShenDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Ozlem UzunerDepartment of 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

objectiveThe 2019 National Natural language processing (NLP) Clinical Challenges (n2c2)/Open Health NLP (OHNLP) shared task track 3, focused on medical concept normalization (MCN) in clinical records. This track aimed to assess the state of the art in identifying and matching salient medical concepts to a controlled vocabulary. In this paper, we describe the task, describe the data set used, compare the participating systems, present results, identify the strengths and limitations of the current state of the art, and identify directions for future research. MATERIALS AND

methodsParticipating teams were provided with narrative discharge summaries in which text spans corresponding to medical concepts were identified. This paper refers to these text spans as mentions. Teams were tasked with normalizing these mentions to concepts, represented by concept unique identifiers, within the Unified Medical Language System. Submitted systems represented 4 broad categories of approaches: cascading dictionary matching, cosine distance, deep learning, and retrieve-and-rank systems. Disambiguation modules were common across all approaches.

resultsA total of 33 teams participated in the MCN task. The best-performing team achieved an accuracy of 0.8526. The median and mean performances among all teams were 0.7733 and 0.7426, respectively.

conclusionsOverall performance among the top 10 teams was high. However, several mention types were challenging for all teams. These included mentions requiring disambiguation of misspelled words, acronyms, abbreviations, and mentions with more than 1 possible semantic type. Also challenging were complex mentions of long, multi-word terms that may require new ways of extracting and representing mention meaning, the use of domain knowledge, parse trees, or hand-crafted rules.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingPatient Discharge SummariesUnified Medical Language SystemDatasets as TopicDeep LearningHumansInformation Storage and Retrievalclinical narrativesconcept normalizationmachine learningnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID32968800
PMCPMC7647359

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.