ArticleJournal of healthcare informatics research2020
Evaluation of a Concept Mapping Task Using Named Entity Recognition and Normalization in Unstructured Clinical Text.
Article in Journal of healthcare informatics research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extraction of clinical phenotypes for Alzheimer's disease dementia from clinical notes using natural language processing.JAMIA open · 2023Article
- Finding buried genetic test results in the electronic health record is inefficient and variable across institutions.Therapeutic advances in rare diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this pilot study, we explore the feasibility and accuracy of using a query in a commercial natural language processing engine in a named entity recognition and normalization task to extract a wide spectrum of clinical concepts from free text clinical letters. Editorial guidance developed by two independent clinicians was used to annotate sixty anonymized clinic letters to create the gold standard. Concepts were categorized by semantic type, and labels were applied to indicate contextual attributes such as negation. The natural language processing (NLP) engine was Linguamatics I2E version 5.3.1, equipped with an algorithm for contextualizing words and phrases and an ontology of terms from Intelligent Medical Objects to which those tokens were mapped. Performance of the engine was assessed on a training set of the documents using precision, recall, and the F1 score, with subset analysis for semantic type, accurate negation, exact versus partial conceptual matching, and discontinuous text. The engine underwent tuning, and the final performance was determined for a test set. The test set showed an F1 score of 0.81 and 0.84 using strict and relaxed criteria respectively when appropriate negation was not required and 0.75 and 0.77 when it was. F1 scores were higher when concepts were derived from continuous text only. This pilot study showed that a commercially available NLP engine delivered good overall results for identifying a wide spectrum of structured clinical concepts. Such a system holds promise for extracting concepts from free text to populate problem lists or for data mining projects.
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.