Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33484944›Full record

ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2021

A fast, accurate, and generalisable heuristic-based negation detection algorithm for clinical text.

Karin Slater, William Bradlow, Dino Fa Motti, Robert Hoehndorf, Simon Ball, Georgios V Gkoutos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Exploring Descriptions of Movement Through Geovisual Analytics.KN - journal of cartography and geographic information · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Karin SlaterCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK; Institute of Translational Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham, NHS Foundation Trust, UK; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: l.slater.1@bham.ac.uk.
William BradlowInstitute of Translational Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham, NHS Foundation Trust, UK; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Dino Fa MottiInstitute of Translational Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham, NHS Foundation Trust, UK; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Robert HoehndorfComputer, Electrical and Mathematical Sciences & Engineering Division, Computational Bioscience Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, UK.
Simon BallInstitute of Translational Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham, NHS Foundation Trust, UK; MRC Health Data Research UK (HDR UK) Midlands, UK; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Georgios V GkoutosCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK; Institute of Translational Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham, NHS Foundation Trust, UK; NIHR Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, UK; NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, UK; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, UK; MRC Health Data Research UK (HDR UK) Midlands, UK; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council HDRUK/CFC/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Negation detection is an important task in biomedical text mining. Particularly in clinical settings, it is of critical importance to determine whether findings mentioned in text are present or absent. Rule-based negation detection algorithms are a common approach to the task, and more recent investigations have resulted in the development of rule-based systems utilising the rich grammatical information afforded by typed dependency graphs. However, interacting with these complex representations inevitably necessitates complex rules, which are time-consuming to develop and do not generalise well. We hypothesise that a heuristic approach to determining negation via dependency graphs could offer a powerful alternative. We describe and implement an algorithm for negation detection based on grammatical distance from a negatory construct in a typed dependency graph. To evaluate the algorithm, we develop two testing corpora comprised of sentences of clinical text extracted from the MIMIC-III database and documents related to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients routinely collected at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS trust. Gold-standard validation datasets were built by a combination of human annotation and examination of algorithm error. Finally, we compare the performance of our approach with four other rule-based algorithms on both gold-standard corpora. The presented algorithm exhibits the best performance by f-measure over the MIMIC-III dataset, and a similar performance to the syntactic negation detection systems over the HCM dataset. It is also the fastest of the dependency-based negation systems explored in this study. Our results show that while a single heuristic approach to dependency-based negation detection is ignorant to certain advanced cases, it nevertheless forms a powerful and stable method, requiring minimal training and adaptation between datasets. As such, it could present a drop-in replacement or augmentation for many-rule negation approaches in clinical text-mining pipelines, particularly for cases where adaptation and rule development is not required or possible.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHeuristicsDatabases, FactualData MiningHumansLanguageNatural Language ProcessingText mining negation detection context disambiguation clinical information extraction

Identifiers

PMID33484944
PMCPMC7910278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.