Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34297002›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2021

Assessing the Performance of Clinical Natural Language Processing Systems: Development of an Evaluation Methodology.

Lea Canales, Sebastian Menke, Stephanie Marchesseau, Ariel D'Agostino, Carlos Del Rio-Bermudez, Miren Taberna, Jorge Tello

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Prediction model for major bleeding in anticoagulated patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism using machine learning and natural language processing.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

7 authors.

Lea CanalesDepartment of Software and Computing System, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5018-5400
Sebastian MenkeMedSavana SL, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2588-6405
Stephanie MarchesseauMedSavana SL, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6494-4973
Ariel D'AgostinoMedSavana SL, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5621-7645
Carlos Del Rio-BermudezMedSavana SL, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1036-1673
Miren TabernaMedSavana SL, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2446-186X
Jorge TelloMedSavana SL, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3999-1572

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical natural language processing (cNLP) systems are of crucial importance due to their increasing capability in extracting clinically important information from free text contained in electronic health records (EHRs). The conversion of a nonstructured representation of a patient's clinical history into a structured format enables medical doctors to generate clinical knowledge at a level that was not possible before. Finally, the interpretation of the insights gained provided by cNLP systems has a great potential in driving decisions about clinical practice. However, carrying out robust evaluations of those cNLP systems is a complex task that is hindered by a lack of standard guidance on how to systematically approach them.

objectiveOur objective was to offer natural language processing (NLP) experts a methodology for the evaluation of cNLP systems to assist them in carrying out this task. By following the proposed phases, the robustness and representativeness of the performance metrics of their own cNLP systems can be assured.

methodsThe proposed evaluation methodology comprised five phases: (1) the definition of the target population, (2) the statistical document collection, (3) the design of the annotation guidelines and annotation project, (4) the external annotations, and (5) the cNLP system performance evaluation. We presented the application of all phases to evaluate the performance of a cNLP system called "EHRead Technology" (developed by Savana, an international medical company), applied in a study on patients with asthma. As part of the evaluation methodology, we introduced the Sample Size Calculator for Evaluations (SLiCE), a software tool that calculates the number of documents needed to achieve a statistically useful and resourceful gold standard.

resultsThe application of the proposed evaluation methodology on a real use-case study of patients with asthma revealed the benefit of the different phases for cNLP system evaluations. By using SLiCE to adjust the number of documents needed, a meaningful and resourceful gold standard was created. In the presented use-case, using as little as 519 EHRs, it was possible to evaluate the performance of the cNLP system and obtain performance metrics for the primary variable within the expected CIs.

conclusionsWe showed that our evaluation methodology can offer guidance to NLP experts on how to approach the evaluation of their cNLP systems. By following the five phases, NLP experts can assure the robustness of their evaluation and avoid unnecessary investment of human and financial resources. Besides the theoretical guidance, we offer SLiCE as an easy-to-use, open-source Python library.

Indexed as

clinical natural language processingelectronic health recordsgold standardnatural language processingreference standardsample size

Identifiers

PMID34297002
PMCPMC8367121

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.