ArticleCancer informatics2022
Using Natural Language Processing Techniques to Detect Adverse Events From Progress Notes Due to Chemotherapy.
Article in Cancer informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence and computational methods in the Asia-Pacific pharmacovigilance landscape: a systematic review.International journal of public health · 2026Pooled it
- Improving Clinical Documentation with Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review.Perspectives in health information management · 2024Pooled it
- Analytical approaches for medication management for patient safety: a scoping review.npj health systems · 2025Article
- Using Natural Language Processing to Identify Symptomatic Adverse Events in Pediatric Oncology: Tutorial for Clinician Researchers.JMIR bioinformatics and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Using the Natural Language Processing System Medical Named Entity Recognition-Japanese to Analyze Pharmaceutical Care Records: Natural Language Processing Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Year 2022 in Medical Natural Language Processing: Availability of Language Models as a Step in the Democratization of NLP in the Biomedical Area.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Article
- Development of a novel drug information provision system for Kampo medicine using natural language processing technology.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Is artificial intelligence capable of generating hospital discharge summaries from inpatient records?PLOS digital health · 2022Article
- Exploring optimal granularity for extractive summarization of unstructured health records: Analysis of the largest multi-institutional archive of health records in Japan.PLOS digital health · 2022Article
- Contribution of Synthetic Data Generation towards an Improved Patient Stratification in Palliative Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In recent years, natural language processing (NLP) techniques have progressed, and their application in the medical field has been tested. However, the use of NLP to detect symptoms from medical progress notes written in Japanese, remains limited. We aimed to detect 2 gastrointestinal symptoms that interfere with the continuation of chemotherapy-nausea/vomiting and diarrhea-from progress notes using NLP, and then to analyze factors affecting NLP. Materials and methods: In this study, 200 patients were randomly selected from 5277 patients who received intravenous injections of cytotoxic anticancer drugs at Kagawa University Hospital, Japan, between January 2011 and December 2018. We aimed to detect the first occurrence of nausea/vomiting (Group A) and diarrhea (Group B) using NLP. The NLP performance was evaluated by the concordance with a review of the physicians' progress notes used as the gold standard. Results: Both groups showed high concordance: 83.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.1-90.1) in Group A and 97.7% (95% CI 91.3-99.9) in Group B. However, the concordance was significantly better in Group B ( Conclusion: We detected occurrences of nausea/vomiting and diarrhea accurately using NLP. However, there were more misdetection cases in Group A due to negative findings or past history, which may have been influenced by the physicians' more frequent documentation of nausea/vomiting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.