Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33323109›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

CERC: an interactive content extraction, recognition, and construction tool for clinical and biomedical text.

Eva K Lee, Karan Uppal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. A systematic review of automatic text summarization for biomedical literature and EHRs.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Data-Driven Evidence-Based Patient-Centered Optimal Initiation Time for Dialysis Treatment.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

2 authors.

Eva K LeeCenter for Operations Research in Medicine and HealthCare, School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA. evalee-gatech@pm.me.
Karan UppalSchool of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomated summarization of scientific literature and patient records is essential for enhancing clinical decision-making and facilitating precision medicine. Most existing summarization methods are based on single indicators of relevance, offer limited capabilities for information visualization, and do not account for user specific interests. In this work, we develop an interactive content extraction, recognition, and construction system (CERC) that combines machine learning and visualization techniques with domain knowledge for highlighting and extracting salient information from clinical and biomedical text.

methodsA novel sentence-ranking framework multi indicator text summarization, MINTS, is developed for extractive summarization. MINTS uses random forests and multiple indicators of importance for relevance evaluation and ranking of sentences. Indicative summarization is performed using weighted term frequency-inverse document frequency scores of over-represented domain-specific terms. A controlled vocabulary dictionary generated using MeSH, SNOMED-CT, and PubTator is used for determining relevant terms. 35 full-text CRAFT articles were used as the training set. The performance of the MINTS algorithm is evaluated on a test set consisting of the remaining 32 full-text CRAFT articles and 30 clinical case reports using the ROUGE toolkit.

resultsThe random forests model classified sentences as "good" or "bad" with 87.5% accuracy on the test set. Summarization results from the MINTS algorithm achieved higher ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-SU4 scores when compared to methods based on single indicators such as term frequency distribution, position, eigenvector centrality (LexRank), and random selection, p < 0.01. The automatic language translator and the customizable information extraction and pre-processing pipeline for EHR demonstrate that CERC can readily be incorporated within clinical decision support systems to improve quality of care and assist in data-driven and evidence-based informed decision making for direct patient care.

conclusionsWe have developed a web-based summarization and visualization tool, CERC ( https://newton.isye.gatech.edu/CERC1/ ), for extracting salient information from clinical and biomedical text. The system ranks sentences by relevance and includes features that can facilitate early detection of medical risks in a clinical setting. The interactive interface allows users to filter content and edit/save summaries. The evaluation results on two test corpuses show that the newly developed MINTS algorithm outperforms methods based on single characteristics of importance.

Indexed as

Information Storage and RetrievalMedical Subject HeadingsAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningNatural Language ProcessingVocabulary, ControlledAutomatic summarizationAutomatic translationClinical decision supportContent extraction and recognitionExtracting salient informationExtractive summarizationIndicative summarizationMachine learningMulti indicator text summarization algorithmMultiple indicatorsSentence extraction and ranking

Identifiers

PMID33323109
PMCPMC7739454

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.