Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36179600›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2022

Leveraging weak supervision to perform named entity recognition in electronic health records progress notes to identify the ophthalmology exam.

Sophia Y Wang, Justin Huang, Hannah Hwang, Wendeng Hu, Shiqi Tao, Tina Hernandez-Boussard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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.

Sophia Y WangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. Electronic address: sywang@stanford.edu.
Justin HuangJohns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Hannah HwangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Wendeng HuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Shiqi TaoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Tina Hernandez-BoussardCenter for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

Funding

Stanford Vision Research CoreP30EY026877 · NEI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI TIRIN MOORE · 2017 to 2026
$8.0M
Personalized Predictions for Glaucoma Progression Using Artificial Intelligence for Electronic Health RecordsK23EY032635 · NEI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI WANG, SOPHIA YING · 2021 to 2025
$1.2M
NEI NIH HHS K23 EY032635NEI NIH HHS P30 EY026877
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop deep learning models to recognize ophthalmic examination components from clinical notes in electronic health records (EHR) using a weak supervision approach.

methodsA corpus of 39,099 ophthalmology notes weakly labeled for 24 examination entities was assembled from the EHR of one academic center. Four pre-trained transformer-based language models (DistilBert, BioBert, BlueBert, and ClinicalBert) were fine-tuned to this named entity recognition task and compared to a baseline regular expression model. Models were evaluated on the weakly labeled test dataset, a human-labeled sample of that set, and a human-labeled independent dataset.

resultsOn the weakly labeled test set, all transformer-based models had recall > 0.93, with precision varying from 0.815 to 0.843. The baseline model had lower recall (0.769) and precision (0.682). On the human-annotated sample, the baseline model had high recall (0.962, 95 % CI 0.955-0.067) with variable precision across entities (0.081-0.999). Bert models had recall ranging from 0.771 to 0.831, and precision >=0.973. On the independent dataset, precision was 0.926 and recall 0.458 for BlueBert. The baseline model had better recall (0.708, 95 % CI 0.674-0.738) but worse precision (0.399, 95 % CI -0.352-0.451).

conclusionWe developed the first deep learning system to recognize eye examination components from clinical notes, leveraging a novel opportunity for weak supervision. Transformer-based models had high precision on human-annotated labels, whereas the baseline model had poor precision but higher recall. This system may be used to improve cohort and feature identification using free-text notes.Our weakly supervised approach may help amass large datasets of domain-specific entities from EHRs in many fields.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsOphthalmologyHumansNatural Language ProcessingDeep learningElectronic health recordsNamed entity recognitionNatural language processingOphthalmologyWeak supervision

Identifiers

PMID36179600
PMCPMC9901505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.